AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
Heard Sri.R.Suraj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
As per the prospectus brought out by the Directorate of General Education, a student who aspires for admission for Plus One course in a school situated within the same Grama Panchayath/Municipality/Corporation is entitled to two bonus points. The petitioner contends that his father is an advocate practising at Ernakulam and that he has been residing within the limits of Cochin Corporation limits for the past six years. The petitioner has produced identity cards issued by the Headmaster of the St.Alberts Higher Secondary School, Ernakulam to substantiate that he has been studying from the 8th standard onwards in the said school. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the lease deed which evidences the fact that his father has leased out an apartment in the city. The grievance of the petitioner concerns Ext.P6 circular dated 18.08.2021 which says that for being entitled to two bonus points, the student should produce either a ration card or a nativity certificate, if the address details are not seen in the SSLC book. The petitioner refers to Ext.P1 and contends that he is having A+ in all subjects and that denial of bonus points for failing to produce ration card/nativity certificate is clearly arbitrary.
Sri.R.Suraj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Dhanya V.S. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2012(1)KHC 535] and contended that this Court had occasion to hold that the grant of weightage to those candidates who produced nativity certificates evidencing that they belong to a particular place is constitutionally invalid. Reliance is also placed on KPSC and Others v. Jeeja C V and others [2016(2) KHC 270] and Vincy Dinakaran v. State of Kerala [2021(4) KHC 315] to bolster his submissions. According to the learned counsel, as there are materials to suggest that the petitioner has been pursuing his studies at Ernakulam for the past several years, denial of bonus marks to him to pursue his education in the same corporation limits is clearly untenable.
The learned Government Pleader submits that it was in order to avoid unhealthy practices and to ensure that students in the local area get admission in the schools functioning in that area that bonus points are being awarded.
I find from Ext.P6 circular that it was in order to enable the student to get admission in the local area where he resides that bonus point is being awarded. There is no dispute that the petitioner is not a resident of Ernakulam. The difficulty faced by him is that in the SSLC book, the details of his parents address at Malappuram is mentioned. The petitioner who has been undergoing his studies at Ernakulam for the past several years wants to pursue his Plus One course at Ernakulam itself. The petitioner has produced incontrovertible documents to substantiate that he has been residing at Ernakulam for the past few years.
Having considered the submissions, as an interim measure, there will be a direction to provisionally consider the entitlement of the petitioner to obtain two bonus points as a student within the limits of the same Corporation for pursuing his Plus One course in Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Thevara, Ernakulam.
Post after three weeks.