High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 10 KL CK 0161

T.V. Athira vs Amitha T.A. and Others

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 8 October 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J · P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.A. No''s. 1694, 1724 and 1725 of 2010 and W.P. (C) No. 23084 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 620 words

Ramachandra Menon, J.—All these writ appeals arise from a common interim order dated 27th September, 2010 in I.A. Nos. 13030, 13036 and 13181 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 23084 of 2010 preferred by the petitioners therein.

2.

The factual matrix shows that, for filling up the seats of MBBS and other professional courses, there was a common entrance test wherein requisite number of seats were reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and such other eligible classes. As per the Regulations stipulated by the Medical Council of India, the Scheduled Tribes candidates who are entitled to the benefit of reservation are required to have a minimum of 40% marks in the Common Entrance Test, which was not satisfied by the candidates concerned and as such, the seats were to be filled up in such other manner as prescribed, by considering the eligible Scheduled Caste candidates. Taking note of the scope and purpose of reservation, the State of Kerala proceeded with steps for conducting a ''Special Entrance Examination'' as per Ext.P7 Government Order, which in turn was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in the writ petition who belongs to ''Scheduled Caste'' community, raising a contention that the course pursued by the State of Kerala is not correct or proper; that there is no provision for any such ''Special Entrance Examination''; that if the Scheduled Tribes candidates are not available, then the said seats will go to the Scheduled Caste community and if such an exercise is pursued, the writ petitioner is sure to get admission to a seat for the MBBS course.

3.

After taking note of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order staying the selection proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7. The State of Kerala filed I.A. No. 12689 of 2010 for vacating the said interim order which was dismissed as per order dated 16.9.2010. In the course of the proceedings, the aggrieved parties belonging to the Scheduled Tribes community sought themselves to be impleaded in the writ petition and filed I.A. No. 13181 of 2010 to vacate the interim order. Some other I.A.s were also filed by the petitioners raising additional grounds for the parties concerned. Under such circumstances the learned Single Judge thought it fit to consider the matter afresh and accordingly, the matter was heard in detail. After hearing, the impugned order was passed, holding that the course pursued by the State was beyond the stipulations made by the Medical Council of India and it was not sustainable, which in turn has been challenged by filing W.A. No. 1725 of 2010 by the State and in the other two writ appeals filed by the aggrieved persons.

4.

It is brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing, particularly from the pleadings raised in W.A. No. 1724 of 2010, that the writ petitioner in the meanwhile secured admission to the MBBS course by virtue of her status as a member of the ''Scheduled Caste'' community and this being the position, the matter has become infructuous. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner also submits that the writ petitioner no more intends to pursue the writ petition, in any manner. In the above circumstances, we called for the writ petition as well. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

5.

The writ petition having been dismissed as not pressed, no further orders are called for in these writ appeals and these matters are closed accordingly. It is made clear that, we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case involved or as to the sustainability of the course pursued by the concerned respondents, which are left open.