IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2007 / 1ST BHADRA 1929 WP(C).No. 25159 of 2007(T) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- RUBIYA NAVAS, D/O.C.M.SHANAVAS, T.C.12/1234, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE, JUSTICE MOHAMMED COMMITTEE, OLD HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 3. KERALA PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, T.C.13/1187, VARAMPATH BUILDING, KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 25159 OF 2007 - T ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the admission procedure prescribed by respondents 2 and 3 in the matter of admission to M.B.B.S.Course as per Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, the admission is to be based on both the marks obtained by the candidates for the entrance examination conducted as also the qualifying examination. According to the petitioner, since the candidates applying for admission come from different sources namely, students who passed Higher Secondary Examination, C.B.S.E. Examination, I.C.S.E. Examination, after undergoing totally different scheme of evaluation, it would be totally unjust to treat all of them similarly in the matter of admission and therefore, the admission ought to have been on the basis of the rank obtained in the entrance examination alone. Whatever be the merit of the contention, I am not inclined to consider the same, at this point of time, because the petitioner did not care to WP(C) NO.25159 of 2007 :-2-: challenge the prospectus as and when the same was issued. She chose to write the entrance examination knowing fully well what is in store after writing the examination. She cannot turnround after writing the entrance examination in accordance with Ext.P3 prospectus and thereafter challenge the conditions in the Prospectus after finding that she has not come up to the mark. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, Judge Mbs/ WP(C) NO.25159 of 2007 :-3-: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. OF 2001 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T WP(C) NO.25159 of 2007 :-4-: DATED:01-06-2007 WP(C) NO.25159 of 2007 :-5-: