IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16409 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JULI JOSE, KAITHARAN HOUSE, PANDIKUDY, FORR KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.M. MARY VIMA, CHENNAT HOUSE, KOLLASSERY ROAD KONAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 3. RINU PAUL.K, KANNANKERIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI.P.O, WATER TANK ROAD, KOCHI-7. 4. DEEPA.A.G, ATHIRUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, E.S.I ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 5. ANNA.M.E, MULAKKARA HOUSE, NEAR MALAT BAKERY, NORTH KUMBALANGI.P.O, KOCHI-7. 6. REMYA.T.RM THAZHUPPI PARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI.P.O, KOCHI-7. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC : 16409 OF 2008 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING TRUSTEE, SREEDHARMAPARIPALANA YOGAM, SREEDHARMAPARIPALANA YOGAM SCHOOL OF T.T.C., SREE NARAYANA NAGAR, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 16409 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are students who have been admitted to TTC Course, by the 4th respondent in their institution. The Government originally issued a prospectus for admission pursuant to which the petitioners applied and obtained admission. In that prospectus the minimum qualifying marks for admission was fixed as 45% in the qualifying examination. Petitioners possess that qualification and accordingly got admission. Later on, Government in accordance with the NCTE regulations changed the qualifying mark as 50%. Now the petitioners' admission is treated as irregular on the ground that the petitioners do not possess the minimum qualification for admission to TTC. The petitioners are challenging the proceedings in that regard in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, at the time of admission they had the qualification prescribed by the prospectus and therefore their admission cannot now be held to be irregular. On the other hand, the W.P.(C).No. 16409 OF 2008 2 learned Government Pleader would pointed out that the petitioners' admissions were on 6.11.2007, whereas the Government changed the qualification in accordance with the NCTE regulations, five months prior to petitioners' admission. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in respect of the earlier judgment on the subject, other persons have taken up the matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in that writ petition orders have been passed permitting the students who have been already admitted to continue their studies. As far as the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by Ext.P6 judgment, which has been confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 2935 of 2007 in Ext.P9 judgment. I do not think that the petitioner can now canvas for the proposition that they are entitled to continue their studies pursuant to irregular admission. As far as the order of the Supreme Court is concerned that would be applicable only to the petitioners in that case. Further the Supreme Court has powers under 142 of the Constitution of India which the High Court does not have. Further several writ petitions have been filed seeking continuance of studies of students who were admitted without W.P.(C).No. 16409 OF 2008 3 minimum qualifying marks. It is not in the interest of standards of education in the country to have such large number of students without minimum qualifying marks coming out with TTC to teach our children, especially at a time when there is noticeable fall in the general standards of education in the State. If such irregular admissions are countenanced that would encourage unscrupulous management to make similar admissions in future and seek similar reliefs by filing writ petitions for declaring such admissions as regular. The Supreme Court has also held that the State Government cannot dilute minimum criteria for admission fixed by bodies like NCTE. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-