AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and standing counsel for the 4th respondent.
Petitioner passed BA English with first class. Thereafter she made an online application for admission to MA English. Ext.P3 is the copy of the application. According to the petitioner, in the ranked list published by the 4th respondent, she was Rank No. 111. However she was not allotted to any college. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent on instruction submits that, the application forms required the candidate to exercise option of the colleges to which they desired to be admitted. It is stated that in the application form, petitioner did not exercise any option, and that, it was on account of the above that the petitioner was not allotted to any of the colleges.
The correctness of this submission made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent cannot be doubted in view of the contents of Ext.P3 application and also what is stated in Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner to the Minister for Education. Therefore, the 4th respondent cannot be faulted for not allotting the petitioner to any of the colleges for MA English as sought for by the petitioner.
However, the second allotment is yet to commence, and if there are vacancies, even if the petitioner is allowed to cure the defect and on that basis her application is considered, no prejudice will be caused to any third parties. In that view of the matter, I direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to exercise option and on that basis consider her for allotment to any of the colleges where seat is available.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.