Controller Of Examination (Agril. Edn.) vs Devinileena P.S

N.Nagaresh, J

By the judgment in WP(C)No.3159/2021 dated 23.03.2021, this Court directed that in case the Commissioner for Entrance Examination is furnishing a list, that list shall be confined to only 19 candidates and the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action to see that such mistakes do not occur in the counselling to be made in future. The petitioner was directed to accommodate against one among the 20 seats either in the General or in the OBC category. It is an admitted position that the judgment has been complied with and the writ petitioner has been admitted to the Course. However, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition is before this Court seeking to review the judgment.

The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that in paragraph 10, this Court has held that "it would appear that the 2nd respondent has not done the counselling seriously as is done for admission to Medicine, Engineering etc." This Court again in the operative portion of the judgment observed that "the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action to see that such mistakes do not occur in the counselling to be made in future".

The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that method of counselling followed by the review petitioner and the one followed for Medicine and Engineering are different. Those counsellings cannot be compared with. The observation of this Court as contained in Ext.P10 was made solely on the basis of the criteria adopted in the counselling conducted in Medicine and Engineering Course. The method of counselling followed by the review petitioner is also an effective one. The 1st respondent has been conducting the counselling in that method for last so many years.

For the same reason, this Court ought not have directed the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action to see that such mistakes do not occur in the counselling to be made in future. Such observations will seriously affect the stature of the 1st respondent as the Controller of Examination. It may be a reason for other candidates to agitate similar issues in future based on these observations. In the circumstances, the judgment of this Court is liable to be reviewed to that limited extent.

I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

A perusal of the judgment dated 23.03.2021 in WP(C)No.3159/2021 would show that this Court had sufficient grounds to interfere in the matter and direct that the petitioner should be included in the admission process. Even in the absence of the observations made in paragraph 10 and in the operative portion of the judgment, the directions issued in the judgment can be sustained.

In view of the facts now pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the observations of this Court contained in paragraph 10 and the operative portion of the judgment need not be taken as adverse comments on the method of counselling followed by the 1st respondent in the counselling process.

It is accordingly declared that the observation in paragraph 10 of the judgment in WP(C)No.3159 of 2021 that "it would appear that the 2nd respondent has not done the counselling seriously as is done for admission to Medicine, Engineering etc." and the direction in the operative portion of the judgment that "the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action to see that such mistakes do not occur in the counselling to be made in future" would stand removed.

The review petition is allowed to the aforesaid limited extent.