P. Jisha John vs State of Kerala and Others

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.—The Petitioner, an Applicant for admission to T.T.C. course for the years 1998-2000 pursuant to Ext. P2 notification, has approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 and seeking a declaration that she is entitled to get admission to the said course on the basis of Ext. P3 under SSLC Ex-servicemen quota. When applications were invited as per Ext. P2 notification, the Petitioner also made an application. As per Ext. P2 the Applicant should have the qualification of pass in pre-degree or Higher secondary examination. It is also provided that 25% of the seats would be reserved for SSLC holders with 45% marks for Science, Mathematics, English, and first language or 50% in aggregates and the remaining 75% seats would be for pre-degree holders or higher secondary certificate holders.

The Petitioner had passed SSLC examination with sufficient marks as mentioned above. After SSLC she attended pre-degree classes and has passed pre-degree examination as well. But she did not get 50%, marks for pre-degree examination. Ext. P 2 notification specifically provided that pre-degree candidates should have secured at least 50% marks. The Petitioner showed in her application that she had passed SSLC with necessary minimum marks. Accordingly, she was issued with Ext. P. 3 memo of selection that she had been selected under SSLC Ex-servicemen quota. The Petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of dependent of Ex-servicemen. When she appeared for admission on the basis of Ext. P3, she was denied admission and Ext. P 5 communication was given to her slating that on verification of her certificate it came to the notice of the Headmistress that she was not eligible for admission to TTC course under SSLC quota, as she had passed pre-degree examination. Ext. P 5 also refers to Ext. P4 communication dated 27-5-98 wherein the Director of Public Instruction instructed the Deputy Director that;

While making selection candidates with PDC or equivalent higher qualifications should not be admitted to the quota earmarked for SSLC holders.

The Petitioner submits that it is based on this instruction in Ext. P-4 dated 27-5-98 that she is denied admission. According to her though she had passed pre-degree examination without 50% marks, she had also passed the SSLC examination with the necessary minimum marks provided for the 25% of the seats reserved in Ext. P-2. She shall be considered for the quota set apart for SSLC holders in terms of Ext. P-2 notification dated 29-1-98. Ext. P-4 clarification is later than Ext. P-2 notification. Therefore Ext. P-4 shall not govern the selection pursuant to Ext. P-2 notification. It is further contended by the Petitioner that when 25% of the seats are earmarked for SSLC holders with specified mark limit, the Petitioner who has passed SSLC examination with distinction shall be considered against the quota for the SSLC holders, even if Ext. P-4 is applied because she is a SSLC holder as well. The Petitioner with SSLC is therefore entitled for a seat under SSLC quota with the benefit of dependent of Ex-servicemen as well.

The claim of the Petitioner is contested by the Govt. Pleader submitting that the minimum qualification for admission is pass in pre-degree examination with aggregate minimum of 50% marks. It is so provided for by amending Rule 10 of Chapter XXV as per notification issued in GO(P) No. 471/97 D.Edn., dated 29-11-98. The rule also provided that "during the academic year 1998-99 for 25% of the seats minimum qualification will be retained as S.S.L.C. with an aggregate 50% marks. Therefore SSLC holders and pre-degree holders have to be separately considered for the quota earmarked for them. Every pre-degree holder or higher secondary holder will always be a matriculate. Therefore it cannot be taken that pre-degree holders can be considered against the quota set apart for SSLC holders. In other words Govt. Pleader submits that against the 25% of the seats reserved for SSLC holders those who had acquired higher qualification than SSLC cannot be considered at all. Rule 10 of Chapter XXV before the amendment provided that;

The minimum qualification for selection for training shall be a pass in the SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala with a minimum of 45 per cent marks each in English Science, Malayalam Mathematics and an aggregate minimum of 48 per cent marks....

It was also provided in the same rule that;

Half the number of seats will be filled up by SSLC holders and the rest by the holders of pre-degree or its equivalent.

Thus as per the old rule both SSLC holders and pre-degree holders were eligible for admission to the course and separate quota of 50% each had been set apart for them. The case of candidates similarly placed as the Petitioner was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 620/92. The issue considered in the said case is, as discernible from para 3 of the judgment as follows;

According to the Petitioners who have filed the Original Petitions they are competing on the basis of the marks they have obtained in the SSLC examinations, though they have passed pre-degree examination they are entitled to get admission in preference to many of the SSLC holders.

It was also contended that "if this Court holds that pre-degree holders cannot compete for the seats allotted or reserved for SSLC holders on the basis of the marks of the persons who passed pre-degree examination, it will be very harsh and will be against the intention of the rule making authority", Considering the issue this Court held as follows:

From the rule it is clear that SSLC holders and pre-degree holders arc treated separately. The purpose of treating them separately is to see that SSLC holders must get half the total scats or half the seats available for admission. When once rule makes it clear that half the number of seats will be filled up by SSLC holders and the rest by the holders of pre-degree or its equivalent and that, the order of merit for SSLC holders have to be judged on the basis of the marks for the SSLC and for pre-degree holders on the basis of the marks for pre-degree examination. It is difficult for us to say the real intention of the rule is to allow pre-degree holders also to compete in the quota reserved for SSLC holders if the pre-degree holders have obtained higher marks in SSLC. It is difficult for us to give such a meaning and interpretation to Rule 10 of Chapter XXV.

Though the rule was amended as mentioned above, for the current year, that is 1998-99, for 25% of the seats, minimum qualification is retained as SSLC. Thus even the amended rule, so far as the year 1998-99 is concerned; is in every respect similar as unamended Rule 10 and as considered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, except to the extent that only 25% of the seats are reserved for SSLC holders as against 50% in the unamended rule. Except in the matter of such percentage there is no difference in the qualification so far as the amended rule is concerned. It is based on the amended rule that Ext. P-2 notification was issued inviting application for admission to the course. Going by the rule and the Division Bench decision of this Court as mentioned above, it is clear that pre-degree holders cannot "compete the quota reserved for SSLC holders if the pre-degree holders have obtained higher marks in SSLC". Therefore on the basis of the statutory rules governing the issue itself the Petitioner cannot contend that her case shall be considered against 25% quota for SSLC holders.

It is true that the Petitioner was issued with an admission card as revealed by Ext. P-3 against SSLC Ex-servicemen quota. I specifically asked the counsel for the Petitioner whether she had indicated in her application that she had passed pre-degree examination. The counsel, after taking instruction from the Petitioner, submitted that she did not mention in the application about her pass in the pre-degree examination. It was in the above circumstances that Ext. P-3 admission card was issued to the Petitioner on the basis that she had not passed pre-degree examination. It was only when she appeared pursuant to Ext. P-3 that it came out that the Petitioner had passed pre-degree and therefore she could not have been considered against SSLC quota. It was in the above circumstances that Ext. P-5 had been issued stating that she was not eligible for admission for TTC course under SSLC quota. True Ext. P-5 relied on Ext. P-4, which is later in time than Ext. P-2 notification. It is also true that Ext. P-4 gives direction to the selecting authority that candidates with higher qualification should not be admitted to the quota earmarked for the SSLC holders. The Petitioner has a contention that, that instruction contained in Ext. P-4 issued later than Ext. P-2 notification cannot be applied to the selection. I have already examined the effect of Rule 10. Even if Ext. P-4 is not there, the effect of Rule 10 is that, as held by the Division Bench in the judgment above mentioned, the pre-degree holders cannot be considered against the quota reserved for SSLC holders. Ext. P-4 instruction in that regard was unnecessary in the light of the rules. Therefore, Ext. P-4 docs not make any'' difference at all. The Petitioner, having admittedly passed pre-degree examination cannot compete against SSLC quota. She has to be considered against 75% of the seats for pre-degree holders, but she is not qualified for a seat in that quota as she does not possess the minimum necessary marks or sufficient marks to come within the selected candidates. The Petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief sought for in the original petition.

Original petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.