MAYA M KARL Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Clause 11.8.2 in Ext.P1 Prospectus for admission for Professional Degree Courses, 2019 in the State of Kerala, and G.O.(MS) No.122/98/H.Edn. dated 07.10.1998, since the same is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a candidate seeking admission to MBBS course in any of the Government Medical Colleges in Kerala. She has qualified in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG 2019) conducted by the National Testing Agency. As per Ext.P3, petitioner was placed in NEET Rank No.10703 and Kerala Medical Rank 1356. But, later, the Kerala Medical Rank Nos.620, 1051, 1127, 1230, 1250 and 1315 are missing, and instead of raising her rank by 6 units, she was thrown below by one unit. The first allotment was conducted on 09.07.2019 and the petitioner could not get any allotment. Before conducting the second allotment, the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations published Ext.P8 notice showing the vacancies available.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, in all, made 1280 allotments to Government Medical Colleges as against the total 1330 seats available. Therefore, according to the petitioner, 50 seats remain un-allotted, and as per the rank of the petitioner, she will get allotment, if allotment is made to the 50 seats also. That apart, it is submitted that, Clause 11.8.2 in Ext.P1 and the Government Order specified above dated 07.10.1998 envisages treatment of candidates availing benefits of communal reservation for getting a college of his/her choice, as a State Merit candidate, is unconstitutional being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the allotments given following the aforesaid provision of Ext.P1 Prospectus and the Government Order has resulted in just 42% seats available to General Category candidates, and the remaining is set apart to reserved candidates. This, according to the petitioner, is against the judgment of the apex court in 'Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1993 AIR(SC) 477']. Therefore, Ext.P9 allotment list is challenged by the petitioner, as it is illegal and unconstitutional, and also seeks writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to conduct allotment in respect of 50 seats left outstanding. These are the basic facts projected by the petitioner.