IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27102 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GANDHI DEVAN, S/O.THIRUVAN, AGED 61, KONATHU HOUSE, ANGADIKKAL SOUTH P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27102 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Smt. R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Narayanan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a former bank employee, appeared for the entrance examination held on 5.7.2009 for admission to the five year LLB degree course commencing from the academic year 2009-2010. He secured rank No.224. The centralised counseling for allotment of candidates to various Government Law Colleges in the State was held at Thiruvananthapuram on 14.9.2009. As per the prospectus, candidates have to appear in person for allotment along with the relevant records. It is also stipulated that if a candidate is not able to appear for sufficient reasons, he can depute a representative on his behalf with an authorisation letter in the prescribed form. It is also stipulated that the representative should produce the documents which the candidate should produce. The petitioner did not admittedly appear in person on 14.9.2009 for the allotment or depute a representative on his behalf together with the records. Therefore the petitioner’s candidature was not considered when the centralised allotment was made. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent W.P.(C) No. 27102/09 2 to give him another opportunity for participating in the centralised allotment process. 3. The petitioner admits in categorical terms that he did not appear in person or sent a representative. The counseling process was held on 14.9.2009. The petitioner, who is a former bank employee and who should be deemed to be aware of the terms and conditions of the prospectus, could have deputed a representative in his absence. That having not been done by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the inability of the petitioner to appear on 14.9.2009 cannot be a ground to direct the Commissioner for entrance examinations to give him another opportunity to participate in the centralised allotment. If such requests are entertained, it will create confusion in the allotment process. The petitioner who alone is to be blamed for his failure to attend the counseling on 14.9.2009 cannot in my opinion seek or be granted the relief prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps