IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36214 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. LIBIN.A.P., S/O.PAPPACHAN A.T., AALAKKADAN (H), OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 550. 2. SHINTO KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN JOSEPH, KARIMPANAKKAL (H), KEERITHODU P.O., IDUKKI - 685 602. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC, DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDIC MEDICAL EDUCATION, AROGYABHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. NAGARJUNA AYURVEDA INSTITUTE KALADY, ERNAKULAM-683 550. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36214 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to Ext.P3 prospectus, petitioners applied and got selected and joined the course of Ayurveda Therapist in the 3rd respondent College. By Ext.P4, Government rejected approval of their admission on the ground that the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility criterion laid down in the prospectus. According to the petitioners, they having secured more than 50% marks specified in the prospectus, the stand taken in Ext.P4 is erroneous and therefore the writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 and seeking consequential reliefs. 2. On instructions, learned Government Pleader points out that as per Clause 1 of Ext.P3 Prospectus, candidates belonging to State of Kerala and who have passed SSLC or an equivalent examination with 50% marks (C+ Grade) having eligibility to undergo +2 or equivalent courses are eligible for admission. It is stated that petitioners did not satisfy neither the percentage requirement nor the C+ grade specified in Ext.P3. It is further submitted that way back on 7/6/2010, the 2nd WPC No. 36214/10 :2 : respondent had issued communications requiring the colleges to remove ineligible students, who were enrolled and it was despite the above that the petitioners continued the course. 3. If as stated by the learned Government Pleader, petitioners do not satisfy the 50% and C+ Grade laid down in Ext.P3, the petitioners cannot find fault with Ext.P4 for the reason that they are ineligible. In view of the submission thus made by the learned Government Pleader and as there is nothing to contradict the said submission, I do not find any substance in the challenge against Ext.P4. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp