AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The 1st petitioner who is a Christian converted from Pulaya community is seeking admission to B.Sc. Nursing Course for the current year pursuant to Ext.P5 allotment. It is the 1st petitioner's case that she is eligible for being considered for admission under Other Eligible Communities (OEC) category. In the application submitted by the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner had made a claim for the benefits available to OEC category.
The 1st petitioner states that allotment was granted to the 1st petitioner which has been subsequently cancelled by the respondents. The 1st petitioner therefore sought quashing the decision of the 3rd respondent declining the eligibility of the 1st petitioner for allotment under OEC quota.
It is not disputed that members belonging to OEC categories are entitled to get the benefit of reservation against the unavailed seats allocated to the SC/ST candidates. According to the Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent there were 40 seats allocated for SC and ST. The 1st petitioner's rank in the said rank list is 14774.
The Standing Counsel submitted that in the second round of allotment, it was decided to give the 1st petitioner allotment treating her as being eligible to EWS quota. That was a mistake. When the mistake was noted, the said allocation was freezed even before the third allotment. Since all the seats reserved in SC/ST have been allotted to SC/ST candidates, only if and when such candidates fail to join the course, benefit can be given to OEC category.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that since the 1st petitioner has already been allotted a seat, the 1st petitioner cannot exercise her option for availing admission against seats that may be available to the OEC, under spot allocation.
The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that since the allotment granted to the 1st petitioner is already freezed, the 1st petitioner can exercise her options for availing seats allocable to OEC, if, any, under spot admission and the 3rd respondent will permit the 1st petitioner to exercise such option.
The allotment of seat to the petitioner as per Ext.P5 is by mistake. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the 1st petitioner based thereon. Since the seats allocable to SC/ST candidates are already allotted, whether the 1st petitioner would be eligible for reservation against unavailed seats of SC/ST can be decided only as and when such allocated SC/ST candidates fail to join the course. If any of such SC/ST candidates fail to join the course, definitely those seats will be filled up by spot admission. In such event, since the 3rd respondent has already stated that the 1st petitioner will be permitted to exercise option for those seats, this Court finds that the writ petition can be disposed of with necessary directions.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of recording the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent that in view of the freezing of the allocation already made to the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner will be permitted to exercise her option for availing seats under the OEC category in further spot admissions. If unavailed seats of SC/ST are available, the 1st petitioner will be entitled to exercise option for allocation of seat under OEC category, in which case the 3rd respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.