GREESHMA M.S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a student belonging to the Scheduled Caste, had joined for BDS Course in the year 2012-13 at the fourth respondent College. The petitioner was admitted to a seat which remained unfilled after closure of allotment to the 50% merit quota seats set apart to be filled by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination (CEE). The grievance of the petitioner is regarding refusal of the Government to pay her fees for the BDS Course in spite of the specific terms of Ext.P11 agreement and Ext.P3 order, by which the Government is bound to pay the fees of SC/ST students.

(2.) With respect to the admission for the year 2012-13, the Government of Kerala had entered into Ext.P11 consensual agreement with the Kerala Christian Professional College Managements Federation ('Federation' or 'Member College' for short). The Federation consisted of four Private Medical Colleges and a private Dental College (the fourth respondent). Under the agreement, the parties arrived at a consensus with respect to admission of students to the Member Colleges, collection of fee and refundable interest free deposit and such other amounts from the students admitted in the above colleges. Under Clause (1) of the agreement, 50% of the total seats in the Member Colleges was to be filled up by the managements as allotted by the CEE from the list prepared by the CEE on the basis of merit and in accordance with reservation principles followed by the Government from time to time. The remaining 50% seats were to be filled up by the managements of the Member Colleges, of which, 15% of the total seats could be filled up by the management from NRI category and 35% of the total seats directly, from a merit list prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination in the core subjects and marks secured in the entrance examination. As per Clause (8), the educational agency was entitled to fill up the seats remaining unfilled after closure of allotment by the CEE. These unfilled seats (lapsed seats) from Government side are reverted to the educational agency as additional management seats, which the educational agency could fill up based on the merit list prepared by the management. Clause (10) of the agreement specifically provided for payment of fees by the Government in the case of SC/ST candidates. The Government issued Ext.P3 order, incorporating the terms of Ext.P11 agreement. Clause 9 of Ext.P3 is identical to Clause 10 of Ext.P11 and provides for payment of fees by the Government in the case of SC/ST candidates.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, insofar as Ext.P3 provides for payment of fees of SC/ST students by the Government, the petitioner's fees ought to have been paid. Drawing attention to Ext.P4 it is submitted that even those SC/ST students admitted prior to 2012-13 and continuing their studies were granted concession, though without retrospective effect. It is pointed out that the omission to include the fourth respondent institution in Ext.P4 can only be a typographical error, Ext.P4 having been issued on the basis of Ext.P3. Further, by Ext.P5 it was clarified that Ext.P4 was issued with the intention of granting benefits to the SC/ST students directly admitted by the management from the CEE's list.