IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4433 of 2009(C) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SAKEER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. HAMZA, RESIDING AT PARAKKODE, CHERUVAYOOR.P.O, VAZHAKKADU, MALAPPURAM DT. - 673 645. BY MR.SANTHARAM.P, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 4. KERALA UNIVERSITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY MR. M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R4 MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4433 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that he was an applicant for B.Pharm through lateral entry. 2. It is stated that in the rank list prepared, he was in 11th position and in the reservation list, 3rd position. It is stated that in addition to the 10% seats earmarked for the lateral entry students, the Government ordered that even the other vacant seats be filled up adopting the same method. It is stated that there are 24 seats available and despite the availability of students, seats are left vacant. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P9 judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.34425/2008. 3. The course in question was commenced in 2007-2008, and therefore, at this distance of time, the prayer made is highly belated. True, the case of the petitioner is similarly situated with that of the petitioner in Ext.P9 judgment referred to above. But, however, that was a case where soon after admission was denied, the petitioner therein had approached this Court and was vigilant to WP(C) No.4433/2009 -2- prosecute his rights. Even claiming the benefit of the judgment, the conduct of the party is relevant, and therefore, I must hold that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. 4. For that reason, I am not inclined to direct that at this stage, that the petitioner should also be granted admission. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg