Kerala HC Refrains From Charging Fees For Filing Multiple Pleas With Similar Prayers

0

In a fascinating ruling, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday wished a petitioner the best of luck in passing the Kerala Engineering Architectural Medical (KEAM) entrance exam on her next attempt, rather than charging a fee for filing several pleadings with similar prayers, thus wasting the search time.

Judge PV Kunhikrishnan heard a plea filed by a young woman belonging to the community of listed castes to be admitted to the MBBS course on the basis of her application submitted during the 2018-2019 academic year.

After noting that the applicant had seized the Court with similar requests on two occasions since 2019, the Court made the following remark:

“In my opinion, this petition must be dismissed with high cost because the petitioner is wasting the time of this tribunal by filing petition after petition with various prayers and that also at late stages. But I’m reluctant to impose a cost in this case. , treat it as an innocent attempt by an innocent girl to gain admission for her dream MBBS course. “

The Court wished him good luck in his future endeavors and asked him to focus on studies rather than spending time pleading:

“The petitioner should have spent time studying well over the next academic year and being admitted to her dream class instead of spending time on this legal battle. It is not the end of her educational career. . I wish her all the best to gain admission to her dream path by taking the qualifying exam next time if possible. Take it as revenge and show society that medical science is safe between yours hands. It will be the happiest day for the author of this judgment as well as for you and your loving parents. God bless you! “

Facts:

The main argument of the petitioner was that the reservation of places available for the caste / tribe community programmed for the vocational course should be calculated on the basis of the total number of places available for the course.

According to the petitioner, the reservation of places available for SC / ST students was not correctly calculated by the respondents during the academic year 2018-2019 and, therefore, she was refused a place.

She addressed the Court alleging that the state authorities had violated the horizontal reservation principles set out by the Supreme Court and that, as a result, the number of seats reserved for SC / ST had been significantly reduced.

The petitioner argued that the reservations regarding SC / ST and other backward classes are vertical reservations under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution, while the reservation for Indian government candidates, persons with disabilities and special reservations are horizontal reservations under Article 15 (1). .

Horizontal reservations intersect vertical reservations and are called nested reservations. The petitioner argued that the 10% reserve for SC / ST should remain at 10% even after providing these horizontal reserves.

According to her, the correct course of action is to fulfill first 60% on the basis of merit, then each of the social reservation quotas, ie OBC 13% and SC / ST 10%. Subsequently, it is necessary to know how many candidates belonging to the categories PWD and SR were selected on the basis above.

If the quota fixed for the categories PWD and SR has already been reached in the case and if it is a global Horizontal Reservation, no other question arises.

Results:

The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed two motions in brief with similar prayers. One of these requests was amended twice and subsequently withdrawing it the same request was filed with almost identical prayers.

In addition, the Court found that there was an inherent delay in the application since it contested its qualification for an MBBS seat for 2018-2019.

“If we review the dates and events of this case, it is clear that the defendants’ assertion that the Applicant’s claim is very late is justified.”

The Court noted that the motion for brief was likely to be dismissed solely for its delay.

“The applicant did not approach this Court in time and this Court is unable to issue orders in favor of the applicant at this time distance.”

It was also noted that even on the merits, the case did not stand as a similar petition had been filed with the Court and was dismissed.

Consequently, considering the plea to be unfounded, the motion in brief was dismissed.

Lawyers TN Jayadevan, D. Jothikumar and J. Vishnu Devaraj appeared for the petitioner while Permanent Counsel for Indian Medical Council Titus Manu Vettom, Permanent Counsel for Kerala University of Health Sciences P. Sreekumar and lead government litigant V. Manu appeared for the respondents. .

Case title: Shilpa S. Jayadev v. State of Kerala and the Ors.

Click here to read / download the judgment


Source link

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.