IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29797 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PANKAJ KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. SHRI RUP LAL, NABAHI V P O TEH - SARKAGHAT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH - 175 024. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA, MEDICAL EDUCATION, AROGYABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION, AROGYABHAVAN. GP SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29797 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1- RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/11/2011 IN W.P(C)NO.29049/2011 /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).29797/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges the list prepared by the respondents towards outside students quota pursuant to clause 3(II) of Ext.P1 prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Course in Ayurveda (Ayurveda Vachaspati M.D (Ay), 2011. 2. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the final list include some students who did not produce certificates such as nativity certificates, to substantiate their claim that they are outside students. Earlier, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C).29049/2011 complaining that though he was also shortlisted for admission, he was excluded from the final rank list denying him time for production of the certificates, while such extension of time was given to others. At that stage, respondents had disclosed that some students who did not have certificates, such as nativity certificates, were given time and that insofar as the petitioner was concerned, he did not have degree certificate or medical registration certificate which were essential. 3. First of all, if at all the petitioner wanted to challenge the W.P.(C).29797/11 2 very list itself for the aforesaid reason, he should have raised that contention in the earlier round of litigation. On the other hand, at that time petitioner also wanted the benefit of enlargement of time for production of certificates. Though this Court did grant the petitioner that benefit, by the time petitioner produced the certificates, admissions were over. In other words, petitioner took advantage of relaxation granted by the respondents and he having failed due to his own delay, is now trying to spoil the chances of others. Such a conduct coming from a student cannot be accepted by this Court. Further, petitioner seeks to quash the list of outside students prepared by the respondents and this challenge is raised without impleading any one of the students who are included in the list and whose chances of admission will be affected if any relief is granted in the writ petition. 4. Therefore, on merits and also for nonjoinder of necessary parties, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge