P JISHA JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an applicant for admission to T.T.C. course for the years 1998-2000 pursuant to Ext. P2 notification, has approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 and seeking a declaration that she is entitled to get admission to the said course on the basis of Ext. P3, under SSLC Ex - servicemen quota. When applications were invited as per Ext. P2 notification, the petitioner also made an application. As per Ext. P2 the applicant should have the qualification of pass in Pre degree or Higher Secondary examination. It is also provided that 25% of the seats would be reserved for S.S.L.C. holders with 45% mark for Science, Mathematics, English and first language or 50% in aggregate and the remaining 75 % seats would be for Pre degree holders or Higher Secondary certificate holders. The petitioner had passed S.S.L.C. examination with sufficient marks as mentioned above. After S.S.L.C. she attended pre degree classes and has passed pre degree examination as well. But she did not get 50% marks for pre degree examination. Ext. P2 notification specifically provided that pre degree candidates should have secured atleast 50% mark. The petitioner showed in her application that she had passed S.S.L.C. with necessary minimum mark. Accordingly, she was issued with Ext. P3 memo of selection that she had been selected under S.S.L.C. Ex - servicemen quota. The petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of dependent of Ex - servicemen. When she appeared for admission on the basis of Ext. P3, she was denied admission and Ext. P5 communication was given to her stating that on verification of her certificate it came to the notice of the Headmistress that she was not eligible for admission to T. T. C course under S.S.L.C. quota, as she had passed pre degree examination. Ext. P5 also refers to Ext. P4 communication dated 27.5.98 wherein the Director of Public Instruction instructed the Deputy Director that;

(2.) The claim of the petitioner is contested by the Government Pleader submitting that the minimum qualification for admission is pass in pre degree examination with aggregate minimum of 50% marks. It is so provided for by amending R. 10 of Chapter XXV KER as per notification issued in GO (P) No. 471/97 D. Edn., dated 29.11.98. The rule also provided that "during the academic year 1998-99 for 25% of the seats minimum qualification will be retained as S.S.L.C. with an aggregate 50% marks". Therefore, S.S.L.C. holders and pre degree holders have to be separately considered for the quota earmarked for them. Every pre degree holders or higher secondary holder will always be a matriculate. Therefore, it cannot be taken that pre degree holders can be considered against the quota set apart for S.S.L.C holders. In other words Government Pleader submits that against the 25% of the seats reserved for S.S.L.C holders those who had acquired higher qualification than S.S.L.C cannot be considered at all. R.10 of Chapter XXV KER before the amendment provided that;

(3.) It is true that the petitioner was issued with an admission card as revealed by Ext. P3 against S.S.L.C. Ex - service men quota. I specifically asked the counsel for the petitioner whether she had indicated in her application that she had passed pre degree examination. The counsel, after taking instruction from the petitioner, submitted that she did not mention in the application about her pass in the pre degree examination. It was in the above circumstances that Ext. P3 admission card was issued to the petitioner on the basis that she had not passed pre degree examination. It was only when she appeared pursuant to Ext. P3 that it came out that the petitioner had passed pre degree and therefore, she could not have been considered against S.S.L.C. quota. It is in the above circumstances that Ext. P5 had been issued stating that she was not eligible for admission for T.T.C. course under S.S.L.C. quota. True Ext. P5 relied on Ext. P4, which is later in time then Ext. P2 notification. It is also true that Ext. P4 gives direction to the selecting authority that candidates with higher qualification should not be admitted to the quota embarked for the S.S.L.C. holders. The petitioner has a contention that, that instruction contained in Ext. P4 issued later than Ext. P2 notification cannot be applied to the selection. I have already examined the effect of R.10. Even if Ext. P4 is not there, the effect of R.10 is that, as held by the Division Bench in the judgment above mentioned, the pre degree holders cannot be considered against the quota, reserved for S.S.L.C. holders. Ext. P4 instruction in that regard was unnecessary in the light of the rules. Therefore, Ext. P4 does not make any difference at all. The petitioner, having admittedly passed pre degree examination cannot compete against S.S.L.C. quota. She has to be considered against 75% of the seats for pre degree holders, but she is not qualified for a seat in that quota as she does not possess the minimum necessary marks or sufficient marks to come within the selected candidates. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief sought for in the Original Petition.