IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1562 of 2010() -------------------- JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26853/2010 Dated 30/08/2010 ................. APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS : ----------------------------------------- 1. AMITHA S., D/O.MARTHANDAN, ARIYANPARAMBIL, PUNNATHALA, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. VIJI GOPAL, D/O.GOPAL, "KARTHIKA", CHEMMAKKADU, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE L.B.S.CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. ...2/- WA.No. 1562 of 2010 -2- 4. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE-560 031. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA R2 BY ADV. SRI. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE R4 BY ADV. SRI. V.M. KURIAN, SC, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------- W.A No.1562 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel Smt.V.P.Seemanthini appearing for the appellants and learned standing counsel appearing for NCTE. 2. Appellants did not have the required marks for admission to B.Ed which is 50%. However, their case is that in the first prospectus published by the Government, minimum marks fixed for admission was 45%. However, admittedly, the mistake was corrected and in terms of NCTE guidelines, the Government issued revised prospectus fixing the minimum marks required at 50% which appellants do not have . 3. Learned Single Judge held that they are not entitled to admission based on the first prospectus and correction of the prospectus by later Government Order is an illegal act. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for NCTE submitted that the same mistake had happened in the case W.A No.1562 of 2010 2 of TTC admission in the year 2007 and learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench rejected the claim for admission based on the first prospectus. We see no merit in the appellants' case because a mistake in prospectus does not entitle ineligible candidates for admission particularly minimum marks are not obtained by the candidates. 4. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that mistake committed by the State and the loss of possible opportunities by the appellants to seek education for any other course may entitle them to proceed against the Government for compensation. However, this Court cannot grant the reliefs sought for i.e. a direction to give admission to the candidates who are without minimum marks. Consequently the the Writ Appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE ma W.A No.1562 of 2010 3