AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This writ appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arises out of the interim order dated 18.09.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.31789 of 2026. The said writ petition was one filed by the appellant-petitioner, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 allotment memo dated 14.09.2026 and the allotment pursuant to Ext.P9; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to restore the option list submitted by the petitioner at 17:43:04 hrs on 09.09.2026, as evidenced by Ext.P7, and to consider her in the third phase of the Centralised Allotment Process for MBBS admission 2026-27 on the basis of the said restored option list, strictly in accordance with her rank and against seats falling vacant; in the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to permit her to register options afresh for the third phase of the Centralised Allotment Process for MBBS admission 2026-27, including in respect of NRI Quota seats, in the manner obtaining in the All India Quota counselling evidenced by Ext.P13 Counselling Scheme for NEET (UG) 2026 published by the Medical Counselling Committee; declare that Note 2 of Ext.P6 notification dated 07.09.2026, and the corresponding provision of the scheme of the 2nd respondent by which all options below an allotted option stand deleted, are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India insofar as they operate upon a candidate whose allotment is shown to have issued from a demonstrable error in the registration of options, and read down the same to that extent; issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to declare that the non-joining by the petitioner of the seat allotted to the 3rd respondent college under Ext.P10 allotment memo shall not operate to exclude her from the third phase or any subsequent phase of the Centralised Allotment Process, nor to forfeit the amount remitted under Ext.P4 receipt; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P11 and P12 representations within such time as this Court may fix; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to enquire into the circumstances in which the option registration page of the petitioner came to be accessed and altered on 09.09.2026 from IP address 223.181.11.231 and to take such action as may be warranted in law. The interim reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.31789 of 2026 read thus;
“Pending final disposal of this writ petition, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to -
(a)Direct the 2nd respondent to treat the petitioner as having validly declined the allotment under Ext.P10, and to stay the operation of Note 2 of Ext.P6 insofar as it would exclude the petitioner from further centralised allotment by reason of such non-joining;
(b)Direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to participate provisionally in the third phase of the Centralised Allotment Process for MBBS admission 2026-27 on the basis of Ext.P7 option list, or on the basis of options to be registered afresh by her, subject to the result of this writ petition, pending consideration and disposal of the above writ petition.”
On 18.09.2026, when W.P.(C)No.31789 of 2026 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge declined the interim relief sought for in that writ petition by the impugned order. Paragraph 5 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“5.The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions submitted that the allotment process has already commenced and the third allotment will be notified soon. It was also submitted that there is a time period specified for exercising options and to rectify it. Ext.P8 is prima facie the evidence of the correction made on behalf of the petitioner and once that correction has crystalised, no further changes can be brought in as it will affect the entire admission process.
Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner has prima facie exercised an option as Ext.P7 and thereafter modified it either by herself or at the behest of someone else, the same cannot be a reason for this Court to interfere. Moreover, the issue regarding at whose instance the options were varied is a matter that falls within the realm of disputed facts. Further, it is not proper for this Court to interfere, especially since the admission process has started. Accordingly, I find no reason to grant any interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence the interim relief is declined.”
The order dated 18.09.2026 of the learned Single Judge, declining the interim reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.31789 of 2026, is under challenge in this intra-court appeal. By the said order, the learned Single Judge posted the writ petition on 16.10.2026, with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to file statement in the meantime.
On 22.09.2026, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.
On 23.09.2026, we heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant for some time. As requested by the learned counsel, the matter was adjourned to 24.09.2026. On 24.09.2026, since the learned counsel for the appellant sought adjournment, the matter was ordered to be listed today.
We heard detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, who appeared online, and also the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader have referred to Clause 11 of the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses, 2026, published by the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, which was approved by the 1st respondent State vide G.O.(Ms.)No.03/2026/ HEDN dated 01.01.2026, which deals with the Centralised Allotment Process (CAP) and Online Submission of Options. The learned Government Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court a relevant extract of the said prospectus.
In Clause 11 of the prospectus it is specified that the Centralised Allotment Process (CAP) is a system of ‘allotments through online submission of options’. The options are willingness of candidates who qualified with a rank in the rank list of KEAM-2026 to join a course/college combination prioritised as per his/her aspiration and desire subject to the conditions specified in Clauses 6 and 9.7.5. Clause 11 provides that candidates should register options only to those courses/colleges which they are sure to join on allotment. If the candidate fails to remit fee/join the college, he/she will lose the allotment as well as all the existing options in the stream to which the allotment belongs. The options once lost will not be available in the subsequent phases, unless otherwise notified. When an allotment is given to a candidate, the previous allotments, if any, shall automatically be cancelled.
Clause 11.4 of the prospectus deals with the rules and regulations governing allotments through submission of options; Clause 11.4.2 - registering options; Clause 11.4.3 - facility for registering options; Clause 11.4.4 - schedule for registering options. Clause 11.5 deals with procedure for registering options; Clause 11.5.5 – procedure for registering options in his/her option registration page; Clause 11.5.6 – registering the options and saving/revising the options registered; Clause 11.5.7 - viewing and printing of the option list based on the options registered; Clause 11.5.8 – logging of from the option registration page (compulsory for preventing the misuse of his/her option registration page by strangers); Clause 11.5.9 - rearranging option priority. Clause 11.6 of the prospectus deals with processing of options and allotment; Clause 11.6.1 – allotment schedule; Clause 11.6.2 – remittance of fee; Clause 11.6.3 – admission for all courses; Clause 11.6.4 – online option confirmation for participating in subsequent phases of allotment; Clause 11.6.5 – further allotments; Clause 11.6.7 - general rules relating to registering of options. As per sub-clause (ii) of Clause 11.6.7, a candidate will not be allotted a seat in a course of a college if he/she has not opted the course - college combination during option registration process of CAP – 2026. Certain other restrictions in exercising option are also provided in sub-clauses (iii) to (v) of Clause 11.6.7. As per sub-clause (v) of Clause 11.6.7., for each phase of CAP - 2026 subsequent to the initial phase, confirmation of the higher order options by logging in to the option registration page and clicking the ‘confirm’ button is mandatory to participate in that phase of allotment even if no cancellation/re-arrangement of options is desired. Non-confirmation of higher order options for a particular phase of CAP will lead to automatic deletion of higher order options belonging to the course(s) included in that phase, making them unavailable for the subsequent phases.
Though the Centralised Allotment Process (CAP) and online submission of options are regulated by the provisions contained in Clause 11 of the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses – 2026, published by the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, with the approval of the 1st respondent State, a copy of that prospectus or a relevant extract of the same, is not placed on record as an exhibit in W.P.(C)No.31789 of 2026. The averments in the writ petition are with reference to Ext.P2 Information Bulletin for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG) - 2026 published by the National Testing Agency under the Ministry of Education, Government of India.
On a query made by this Court the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would submit that due to an inadvertent mistake, instead of the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses – 2026, published by the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, a copy of Information Bulletin for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG) - 2026 published by the National Testing Agency was marked as Ext.P2 in the writ petition.
In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.
On a query made by this Court, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, would submit that the second phase of the allotment for MBBS course – 2026 was over by 19.09.2026 and the third phase of the allotment is yet to be notified by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, which will be followed by the fourth phase of the allotment.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would place reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition ST No.19728 of 2018 – Shashi Saraswat v. State of Maharashtra and others [judgment dated 18.07.2018].
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the writ petition does not contain necessary pleadings regarding the relevant clauses governing the Centralised Allotment Process (CAP) and online submission of options, as contained in the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses – 2026, published by the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The legal and factual contentions raised in the writ petition, by the appellant-petitioner, in support of the reliefs sought for in that writ petition, can be considered in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only with specific reference to the relevant clauses in the said prospectus. Since the second phase of allotment was over by 19.09.2026 and the third phase of the allotment is yet to be notified by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, it is for the appellant-petitioner to file a proper application for amendment of the pleadings in W.P.(C)No.31789 of 2026 as well as an application seeking appropriate interim order in relation to the third phase of allotment, which is yet to be notified by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. We make it clear that the prima facie finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 18.09.2026 will not stand in the way of the appellant-petitioner in filing such interlocutory applications and the learned Single Judge in considering those applications in accordance with law. In case the statement on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is yet to be filed in the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader shall ensure that the same is placed on record, without any delay, so as to enable the petitioner to seek an early disposal of the writ petition.
With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.