The petitioner admitted to B.Tech Course in the second respondent-College. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The petitioner entered to the B.Tech Course through Lateral Entry Scheme being the holder of the Diploma in Engineering.
2. It is submitted that the Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe students are entitled for fee concession for undergoing professional courses in the Self Financing Colleges.
3. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 Government Order.
According to the petitioner, the persons who have entered into the Self Financing Colleges based on lateral entry is also entitled for fee concession. The petitioner relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Akhil P. Pushkar and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (2012 (4) KHC 76). The Division Bench held that SC/ST and OEC students are also entitled for the benefits without reference to whether they were admitted in the merit quota or management quota and also without insisting that should have been admitted from the list prepared by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations. It appears that the petitioner's request has been denied for the reason that the petitioner has obtained admission in B. Tech Course on a management quota. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to reimburse the entire fee paid by him for admission and also seeking other benefits as available to the other candidates, who are admitted in SC/ST quota fee concession.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader points out that the judgment of the Division Bench referred in Akhil P. Pushkar's case has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and SLP No.8073/2013 and connected cases are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is a stay against the impugned judgment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and Another [2009 (4) KHC 283], submits that merely because the judgment of the Division Bench is stayed by the Supreme Court, it does not loose its binding precedent and the Single Judge is bound to follow the judgment of the Division Bench which is under stay.
6. In view of the above, I am bound by the judgment of Akhil P. Pushkar's case (supra) and merely because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the Division Bench judgment, it will not loose its binding precedent.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to grant benefits to the petitioner as available to any other SC/ST and OEC candidates who are admitted to the B.Tech Course in the merit quota. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln