10 Oct 2022 11:30 AM GMT
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed Ilaha College of Arts and Science to admit a candidate who had been denied admission on the belief that he would disrupt the discipline of the College. Justice Devan Ramachandran, while issuing the direction, was of the view that the petitioner was being denied admission to the College based on 'speculative reasons'. "...it is evident that...
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed Ilaha College of Arts and Science to admit a candidate who had been denied admission on the belief that he would disrupt the discipline of the College.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, while issuing the direction, was of the view that the petitioner was being denied admission to the College based on 'speculative reasons'.
"...it is evident that the College is refusing admission to the petitioner based on certain speculative reasons. It may be true that there was an incident in the past, which led to a police complaint being filed against the petitioner, but this does not ipso facto mean that his attempt is to 'wreck vengeance'", the Court observed.
The petitioner in this case had been allotted the Ilaha College of Arts and Science (hereinafter 'College') by the MG University (the 1st respondent herein) for the B.A. Economics course. It is the case of the petitioner that despite presenting his memo of allotment to the Principal, he was not granted admission. Aggrieved, he preferred the instant writ petition.
It was contended by the Standing Counsel for the College P.M. Saneer that the petitioner intended to 'wreak vengeance' upon the College, since the latter had denied admission to the petitioner on the ground of lack of merit, when he had earlier approached it to seek admission in Management quota. It was submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had created a ruckus in the college, because of which a complaint had been filed by the College against him to the Sub Inspector, Muvattupuzha Police Station. It was further submitted that the College had itself submitted a letter to the University on the bona fide belief that the petitioner would disrupt the discipline of the College, if admitted.
The Standing Counsel for the University Surin George Ipe contended that the College was attempting to 'wriggle out of its statutory obligation', and that the latter approached the University with the letter only on 6th October 2022, while the admission had to be completed by the end of September, 2022. It was added that since the admission procedure was completed, the actions of the College would have to be considered seriously.
The Court while allowing the admission of the candidate in this case, noted that if the College had any objection regarding the admission of the petitioner, the same ought to have been raised before the competent Authority before the next allotment period was completed.
However, the College was granted liberty to pursue the matter before the University, and the latter was also directed to decide the same after hearing both sides.
Importantly, the Court added that the petitioner was being admitted to the College on his express undertaking that he would act in strict compliance of the discipline of the College and would not exhibit any conduct in breach thereof.
Advocates Philip M. Varughese, Mathews Joseph, Aiswaria Devi R., Chacko Mathews K., Sreekumar P.N., Emmanuel Cyriac, and Elizabeth George appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Case Title: Muhammad Afreethi v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment