IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35887 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ANITHA A.L., D/O.ANIL JOHN, AGED 19 YEARS, ANITHA BHAVAN, KONNIYOOR, POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUJI S., D/O.SUKU S., AGED 19 YEARS, ANIL BHAVAN, KOODALIBHAGAM, KOKKOTTELA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN SRI.S.SAJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 4. PRINCIPAL, VISWADARSHINI TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, URIYAKODE, URIYAKODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695543. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35887 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were admitted to TTC Course in the College of the 4th respondent. Ext.P6 is the eligibility norms governing admission. Although the petitioners do satisfy the percentage of marks prescribed for admission and were thus admitted, it is stated that respondents 3 and 4 are not now permitting the petitioners to continue their studies on the basis that the petitioners did not pass the examination within three chances as provided in Ext.P6. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that they passed in the SAY examination, which was introduced by Ext.P3 and that SAY examination does not amount to an additional chance as provided in Ext.P6 to render them ineligible to continue their studies.. 2. In my view, this is a matter for the 2nd respondent to consider and as the petitioners have already moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P7, at this stage, what is required is that the 2nd respondent should clarify whether the position is as contended by the petitioners. Therefore, I direct the 2nd WPC No. 35887/10 :2 : respondent to consider Ext.P7, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. It is directed that in the meanwhile, 4th respondent will permit the petitioners to attend the classes, but however, their further continuance will depend upon the decision to be taken by the 2nd respondent with notice to the petitioners. 3. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd and 4th respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp