IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34134 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HUSSAIN A, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE AND RESIDING AT PUTHIYAVALAPPIL, POST ADIVARAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SREESANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT KALADY, PIN-683 574 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREESANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT KALADY, PIN-683 574. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.34134 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Clause 5.2 of Ext.P2 prospectus issued by the University for Integrated M.Phil- Ph.D in Urdu. By Clause 5.2 of the prospectus , age limit for admission to the programme is fixed at 35 and that the candidate should not have crossed the age of 35 as on 1.12.2010. Although in response to Ext.P2, petitioner has made his application, he complains that his application is not entertained for the reason that he has crossed the aforesaid age limit. It is therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the aforesaid provision of the prospectus and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to undergo the selection process for admission. 2. According to the learned standing counsel appearing for the University, prospectus has been prescribed by the University. It is submitted that age limit has been prescribed considering the fact that this is a regular course. It is well within the powers of the W.P (C) No.34134 of 2010 2 University to frame the prospectus incorporating conditions which it deems appropriate. Therefore, modification of the prospectus is also a matter which is well within the powers of the University. It is seen that for modification of Clause 5.2 of the prospectus, petitioner has already approached the Vice Chancellor by filing Ext.P3 representation. 3. Taking note of the aforesaid facts and also the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even the applicants who have responded to Ext.P2 is less than the number of seats, I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner seeking modification of Ext.P2. Pending consideration of Ext.P3, it is directed that the petitioner will be permitted to appear for the written test which is now scheduled to held on 15.11.2010. It is made clear that his participation in the written test will be purely provisional and further consideration of his candidature will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Vice Chancellor on Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner. W.P (C) No.34134 of 2010 3 Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge