STATE OF KERALA Vs. SANDHYA S R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ appeal is filed by the official respondents in writ petition No.34862 of 2016 aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.12.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein with a prayer to declare Ext.P10 as illegal as it was against the provisions of Exts.P3 Government Order and P3(a) list of OBC communities. A direction was also sought for correction of Ext.P11 select list and to include the first respondent under the category of EC community eligible for educational concession as is given to OEC categories. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge rejected the case of the first respondent that reservation provided in Ext.P10 is vitiated for fraud. However, the learned Single Judge directed that in view of Exts.P3 and P3(a) , students belonging to OBH category were entitled to get 3% reservation and the prescription in Ext.P10 that they would be entitled to get only 1% reservation, was in violation of the Government notification and hence arbitrary, illegal and unfair. It is this judgment, which is under challenge in this appel.

(2.) We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

(3.) On facts, it is relevant to note that the first respondent had obtained rank No.28 in the entrance examination conducted for admission to M.D.(Ayurveda) . She was given rank No.4 from the list among EC communities eligible for educational concessions as given for OEC. In the ranked list published on 17.10.2016 she was given rank No.4 as she belonged to 'Vanika-Vaishya' community, which is included among the 30 other backward communities eligible for educational concession as is given to OEC under the Government Order dated 25.2014, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P The Government Order provided 3% reservation to 30 communities enumerated in Ext.P3(a) and it was on that basis, rank was assigned to the first respondent in the ranked list. However, in Ext.P10, the prospectus for postgraduate course in Ayurveda 2016-17, in clause 3 II (b) (c) , only 1% reservation was provided to candidates belonging to Other Backward Hindu (OBH) . In other words, as against the 3% reservation provided in Ext.P3 Government order dated 25.2014, in the prospectus, only 1% reservation was provided. As a result of the reduction in the percentage of reservation, the first respondent lost her opportunity to secure admission in the reservation quota. It was in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed impugning Ext.P10 to the extent mentioned above and seeking implementation of reservation on the basis of Ext.P