IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1663 of 2011() ---------------------------- APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- SANDEEP R., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, 'CHITHIRA'(VELIYIL), PAYALKULANGARA, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (EXAMINATIONS). 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 635. 3. THE NEHRU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & RESEARCH CENTRE, PAMPADY, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR, PIN-680 597, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL. ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1663 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF ALLOTMENT DTD.19.7.2010. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1663 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. This intra court appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, rejecting the reliefs claimed by the appellant challenging Exhibit P2. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant seems to be that the University having allowed the appellant to appear for the two semesters could not have proceeded to cancel the registration of the appellant on the ground that the required percentage of marks in Mathematics for an OBC candidate like the appellant is 45% and the appellant has secured only 43% mark. If the very admission is against the procedure contemplated and by admitting an ineligible candidate one cannot claim principle of estoppel against the University. 2. The case of the appellant that the college committed the mistake unknowingly or otherwise and the appellant cannot be punished, who is totally ignorant of such mistake, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is the University which has the right to say what is the minimum marks required for admission to a particular course. It may not be out of place to WA.1663/11 2 mention that even the appellant would have gone through the required percentage of marks at the time of applying for the course and it would be within the knowledge of college and the appellant what exactly would be the required marks for an OBC in Mathematics to get admission to B.Tech. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in Medical Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera & Others [(2010)1 SCC 173) and Shamin Sainudheen v. Medical Council of India (2010(4) KLT 103). We cannot place reliance on these decisions as in various subsequent decisions arising out of the judgments from the High Court of Kerala and also from the High Court of Karnataka the Supreme Court has time and again said that once a candidate is ineligible to get admission to any course for violating the norms fixed for such admission, it cannot be set right with the intervention of the Courts. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the claim sought for by the appellant. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, , JUDGE vgs