IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21780 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ EVELINE MARIA JOSE, MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER SOFFY.K.M., W/O.JOY MATHEW, 39 YEARS, KALPAKASSERIL HOUSE, CHERUPUZHA PO., KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AMALA NAGAR, TRISSUR-680555, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 2. JUBILEE MISSION MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THRISSUR-680 005, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 3. MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM-682311, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 4. PUSHPAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE THIRUVALLA-689101, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 5. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 6. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE JUSTICE P.A.MOHAMMED COMMITTEE) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OLD HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. 8. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, REP . BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI FOR R10 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. ADV. SRI.T.A. SHAJI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 21780 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an aspirant for admission to a self-financing Medical College. The admission to that college was as per Ext. P3 prospectus. The petitioner applied pursuant to that prospectus. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has got all the qualifications prescribed for admission as per Ext. P3. But the petitioner was denied admission on the ground that the petitioner did not have 50% marks in the common entrance test conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination. According to the petitioner, in Ext. P3, 50% marks in CET was not an eligibility criteria prescribed and therefore the 3rd respondent could not have insisted on the same as an eligibility criterion for admission. The question as to whether Ext. P3 prescribes 50% marks in the CET as an eligibility criteria was considered by me in W.P(C) No. 21998/2008. In that writ petition, I came to the conclusion that in view of the specific prescription in Ext. P3 that the norms of eligibility prescribed by the MCI and respective Universities will also be applicable for this admission, the eligibility condition prescribed by the MCI is also applicable for Ext. P3, which includes minimum 50% marks in Common Entrance Test. The same applies squarely to this case also. In fact, the admission sought for in this case is also to the same college as in the other writ petition. Therefore, following that judgment, this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if any of the respondents takes any steps contrary to the provisions in Ext. P3 for making admission to the course, it would be open to the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.