&w=3840&q=100)
CEE Kerala publishes revised KEAM rank list after court order, know more
After the High Court division bench's order, the Higher Education Department directed the CEE to make the necessary preparations to publish the KEAM rank list under the court's decision and revoked the changes. The revised KEAM 2025 rank list is now on the official candidate portal at cee.kerala.gov.in.
How to check KEAM 2025 ranks?
• Go to the official website at www.cee.kerala.gov.in
• Press on the 'KEAM 2025 - Candidate Portal' link on the homepage.
• Log in utilising your Application Number, Password, and the Access Code
CEE Kerala publishes revised KEAM rank 2025: Candidates' details
1. Engineering exam
• Candidates appeared- 86,549
• Qualified candidates-76,230
• Candidates under the revised rank list- 67,505.
Toppers are:
• Joshua Jacob Thomas – Rank 1
• Hari Kishan Baiju – Rank 2
• Emil Iype Sacharia – Rank 3
2. For Pharmacy exams
• Total number of candidates- 33,425
• Candidates under the revised rank list- 27,841.
Toppers are:
• Anakha Anil – Rank 1
• Hrishikesh R Shenoy – Rank 2
• Fathimathu Zahra – Rank 3.
CEE Kerala KEAM revised rank 2025: What's next?
To view their updated rank and prepare for the next stages of the counselling and seat allocation process, candidates are asked to use the KEAM candidate portal.
CEE Kerala KEAM revised rank 2025: Background Controversy
In order to address long-standing concerns from students following the state syllabus, the Kerala government first released the KEAM 2025 results using a revised mark consolidation formula.
However, candidates from other educational boards, particularly CBSE, objected to the move. Following the court's decision, the rankings were revised using the original methodology and the earlier adjustment was cancelled.
Court orders on the CEE Kerala KEAM revised rank 2025
The change comes after the Kerala High Court invalidated the KEAM prospectus's adjustment to Article 9.7.4. (b). A new method for marks consolidation was included in the clause, which generated significant panic, especially among CBSE board students.
Hana Fathima, a CBSE student who had petitioned against the last-minute change to the ranking criterion, was given preference by the court. The High Court stated that it was not reasonable or equitable to make such a big modification at the final admissions stage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
15 hours ago
- The Hindu
West Bengal government and Centre are not keen for resumption of MGNREGA, despite Calcuttal HC order
While directing the resumption of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in West Bengal, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, led by T. S. Sivagnanam, on June 18, spoke about drawing a line between past actions and future steps to be taken to implement the scheme. The division bench, while resolving the three-year imbroglio, pointed out that the Act 'does not envisage a situation where the scheme will be put to cold storage for eternity'. Despite the High Court order to resume the scheme from August 1, 100 day work has not started and it seems that neither the government at the state nor at the Centre are keen to resume the scheme. The suspension of the scheme has dominated politics in the State for the past three years. Before the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Trinamool Congress leaders paraded MGNREGA beneficiaries in Delhi and highlighted the Centre was depriving the workers of the State of its rightful dues. However, after the High Court directed resumption of the scheme, the response of the ruling party has been lukewarm. In several public gatherings between June 18 and August 1, West Bengal Chief Minister gave no hints on the resumption of the 100-day work. Instead, Ms. Banerjee spoke about Karmashree Prakalpa, a scheme aimed to provide at least 50 days of wage employment to each job card holder household in a financial year. Since the court has directed resumption of the scheme, the Trinamool Congress cannot use the 'Centre's deprivation' card any more. The party, instead, is highlighting that the Centre owes ₹3,000 crore to the State under the scheme. However, the pending funds are no hindrance in the way of resumption of the scheme. The Centre, on the other hand, has not also shown any willingness to comply with the High Court order and continues to hide behind Section 27 of the MGNREGA Act, blocking the release of funds and work, systematically depriving West Bengal's workers of their legal right to employment. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders of West Bengal who have publicly opposed resumption of the scheme do not want the State government to get any allocation under the scheme before the Assembly polls. Neither of the governments are willing to resume the scheme when West Bengal is facing a huge migrant crisis, with millions leaving the State in search of work. In the past six weeks after thousands of people have approached the authorities expressing their willingness to work under the scheme, but there seems to be clarity on whether the scheme will resume or not. As fate of the scheme and workers hangs in balance West Bengal is heading for Assembly polls in 2026. The resumption of the scheme could have provided succour to millions of workers in the State but may not have served political interests of the TMC and BJP. It was Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS) , a union of agricultural workers that approached the High Court seeking resumption of MGNREGA. The union put up a legal fight for three years to ensure that the work under the scheme can start again. The union however blamed 'willful inaction by both the governments' for not resuming the work. Demanding the immediate implementation of MGNREGA work in West Bengal, as per the High Court order, the PBKMS stated that non resumption of work was blatant 'non-compliance with a High Court order is illegal, unjust, and unacceptable'.
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
SC says anticipatory bail cannot be tied to resuming conjugal life, sets aside Jharkhand HC order
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Jharkhand High Court which granted anticipatory bail to a man, allegedly accused of cruelty and attempt to murder of his wife, on the condition that he would resume conjugal life with her and maintain her with dignity and honour. A two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that conditioning the grant of pre-arrest bail on the accused resuming conjugal life with his wife is improper and not permissible under the law. The court quashed the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court. 'The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant (accused husband) would maintain the respondent no.2 (wife) with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation. In such state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition,' the court observed in its order. According to the prosecution, the husband, Anil Kumar, was allegedly an accused in a case registered under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Pak woman deported after Pahalgam attack to get visitor's visa: Govt to J&K HC
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family here. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu.(Pixabay/Representational) The court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any manner. Rashid (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to Rashid. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term visa. The court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest". The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and operate. On July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns. In response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor general. On June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" Rashid. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, 'This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out.' Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April 29. She approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to Pakistan. Rashid, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu. She continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national. "It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order noted. Her husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. 'We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her),' he said.
