KEAM Candidate Entitled To Accept Higher Options Until Centralized Admission Process Is Complete: Kerala High Court Asks College To Refund Fee
The Kerala High Court on Monday held that as long as the centralized admission process was not complete, a candidate who attempted the Kerala Engineering, Architecture, Medical and Allied Courses (KEAM) exam is not only entitled but also bound to accept the higher options in the stream. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby directed MES Dental...
The Kerala High Court on Monday held that as long as the centralized admission process was not complete, a candidate who attempted the Kerala Engineering, Architecture, Medical and Allied Courses (KEAM) exam is not only entitled but also bound to accept the higher options in the stream.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby directed MES Dental College to refund the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- remitted by the petitioner towards liquidated damages as per the KEAM Prospectus.
"Analyzing the situations and the rival submissions made by the respective parties, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not cancelled her higher options at no point of time. So long as the centralized admission process continued, she was not only entitled but also bound to accept the higher options in the stream provided by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations during the process of admission as per the provisions discussed above."
This appeal is preferred by the 4th respondent challenging the judgment whereby the Single Judge directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- remitted by the petitioner towards liquidated damages as per the KEAM Prospectus within one month along with other consequential directions.
The petitioner had applied for a medical course through KEAM. The prospectus for admission to professional degree courses was approved by the State in 2017, and the petitioner had applied in the medical stream as per the prospectus.
In the 5th phase of allotment, the petitioner was allotted admission to Sree Sankara Dental College. Accordingly, she remitted Rs. 2,90,000/- in favour of the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations towards fees. In the 6th phase, she was allotted MES Dental College in the Government seat.
The allotment process for the allied medical courses including Ayurveda started only on 15.09.2017. In the subsequent phases of allotments, the petitioner was given allotments in various colleges and she kept remitting the applicable fees till she was allotted the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) course at Government Ayurveda College. The amount to be remitted by the petitioner was Rs. 12,000/- and the balance of Rs. 60,000/- from Rs. 75,000/- already paid had to be refunded by the Commissioner.
But when the petitioner approached the MES Dental College for her certificates, she was asked to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- towards liquidated damages for getting the certificates. According to the petitioner, to secure her certificates submitted by her before the KMCT Ayurveda Medical College, she had to pay this amount.
Therefore, seeking the return of the liquidated damages paid to the appellant, the petitioner approached the Single Judge.
The Single Judge allowed the plea finding that the petitioner was admitted to the BAMS course on the basis of the centralized allotment process and therefore it cannot be said that the discontinuance of her study in MES Dental College was after closing of admissions. Thus, it was held that no liquidated damages can be extracted from the petitioner.
Challenging the legality and correctness of this judgment, MES Dental College moved the Division Bench.
The paramount contention advanced by Advocate Ahamed Fazil appearing for the appellant is that no student shall be admitted to medical or dental colleges after 31st August of each year and hence no allotments should be made to the MBBS / BDS courses after 31.08.2017. He argued that the petitioner's act amounts to discontinuance of course after the closing of admission in the same academic year and hence appellant college is entitled to the liquidated damages and therefore not liable to return the same.
On the other hand, Advocate R. Ranjanie representing the petitioner pointed out that she made the application as per the KEAM prospectus 2017 for the medical courses, such as MBBS, BDS, BAMS etc. It was argued that since she secured the higher option of BAMS in the Government Ayurveda College in the later phase of allotment, she was entitled to pursue the same as per the prospectus.
Senior Government Pleader K.P. Harish agreed with the appellant and submitted that admission was given to the petitioner on the basis of notification issued for the final phase of centralized allotment to Ayurveda and allied courses. Therefore, the candidates getting allotment to these colleges should invariably join the allotted colleges by 13.10.2017 and should continue their studies in these colleges. Otherwise, they are liable to pay liquidated damages and such candidates are not eligible for a refund.
The Court noted that the petitioner applied for the centralized allotment process and she had opted various courses in the medical stream as per the procedure prescribed under the KEAM prospectus 2017.
It was also found that clause 11.5.6 of the prospectus mandates that an allotment made on the basis of the option be accepted, failing which the candidate will lose not only that option but all the existing options in the stream to which the allotment belongs.
"On a conjoint reading of Clause 11 of the prospectus, it is explicit that, there is a clear-cut procedure prescribed for registering the options and taking admission on the basis of allotment granted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations in accordance with the options provided by a candidate."
Neither the State nor the appellant had a case that the petitioner has deviated from the prescribed procedure. In fact, the provisions say that if the successive higher options are allotted to a candidate and not accepted, it would lead to the cancellation of higher options in the stream in that phase and the subsequent phases.
The petitioner had also argued that even though she got admission as per the lower options made by her, she never cancelled the higher options.
Therefore, the Court decided that as long as the centralized admission process continued, she was not only entitled but also bound to accept the higher options in the stream provided by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations during the process of admission.
The Bench also gathered that the whole confusion was created consequent to the delay in issuing the notification by the State. Looking from that angle, it can be seen that there were no latches or any other legal infirmities on the part of the writ petitioner in securing admission in accordance with the options given by her in the centralized allotment process.
As such, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Single Judge was upheld with a clarification that the appellant is granted one month to comply with the directions contained in the judgment of the Single Judge.
Case Title: MES Dental College v. Shahana P.S & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 380