IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5666 of 2009(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ GAUTAM.T, S/O.JAYARAJ T. REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN JAYARA.T, S/O T.HARIDAS, RESIDING AT SUPRABHA CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (AITMT UNIT) CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2,COMMUNITY CENTER PREETI VIHAR, DELHI 110 301. 2. THE SECTION OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ALL INDIA PRE-MEDICAL PRE DENTAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2,COMMUNITY CENTER PREETI VIHAR, DELHI 110 301. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5666 OF 2009 (C) ==================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 is under challenge. 2. An application made by the petitioner for All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination was rejected for the reason that the application did not carry his signature. Though the petitioner represented to the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P3, there was no response and it is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. When the counsel for the petitioner asserted that although at all places indicated in the application, signatures have not been put, still at most of the places in the application, the petitioner had affixed his signature, standing counsel for the respondents was directed to obtain instructions. 4. On instructions, the counsel today submits that the application does not carry any signature. 5. If that be so, what is stated in Ext.P2 is factually correct. That apart, it is important that the application should carry the signature of the applicant for the reason that the same WPC 5666/09 :2 : has to be scrolled on the admission card, which has also been rendered impossible by virtue of the lapse committed by the petitioner. 6. In view of this, Ext.P2 rejection of the application deserves to be upheld and I do so. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp