IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1108 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19504/2010 Dated 23/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- MYSA ABDUL AZEEZ.V, VELLATHUR HOUSE, THRIKKANDIYUR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1108 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The appellant is the petitioner in WP(C) No.19504 of 2010. In the writ petition, she sought the intervention of this Court to secure admission for the B.Arch. course during the current academic year. By judgment delivered on 23.06.2010, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this Writ Appeal. 2. It is not in dispute and in fact it is conceded that in Ext.P1 OMR data sheet the petitioner did not indicate that she wishes to join the B.Arch. course. She had, however, appeared for the National Aptitude Test in Architecture conducted by the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Architecture. Relying on paragraph 1.4 of Ext.P2 Prospectus, the petitioner contended that the mere failure to indicate that B.Arch. course is a course opted for by the petitioner (in the OMR data sheet) the petitioner cannot be denied admission, for WA No.1108 of 2010 -:2:- the reason that admission is not based on the marks secured in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The learned Single Judge repelled this contention relying on Clause 7.4(c) of the Prospectus which reads as follows: “ 7.4 Instructions for filling the Application Form: xx xx xx (c) The main application form is accompanied by an OMR (Optical Mark Reader) data sheet. The data as marked in the OMR data sheet will be captured by the OMR machine, which will be used for processing in computer. Hence, the entries made against each item in the OMR data sheet should tally with the corresponding entries in the main application form. Any mistake in filing this sheet or providing false/incomplete/wrong information will affect the candidate's eligibility for admission or claim for reservation under any category. It is obligatory that the candidate should fill all the items in the main application form and OMR data sheet.” (emphasis supplied) 3. Clause 7.4 of the Prospectus requires that every candidate has to fill up all columns in the application form as well as the OMR data sheet and the entries made against each item in the OMR data sheet should tally with the corresponding entries in WA No.1108 of 2010 -:3:- the application form. It is also stipulated that the detailed instructions for filling each item in the application are given in Annexure XX of the Prospectus. Clause 7.4 stipulates in express terms that any mistake in filling the OMR data sheet or providing false/incomplete/wrong information will affect the candidate's eligibility for admission or claim for reservation under any category. In our opinion as the petitioner did not indicate that she wishes to join the B.Arch. course by darkening the bubble in the relavant column in the OMR data sheet, the learned single Judge was perfectly right in holding that in view of Clause 7.4(c) of the Prospectus, she cannot claim admission for the said course. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it will lead to a situation where the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations will be flooded with such requests. On the admitted facts of the case we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner who did not indicate that she wishes to join the B.Arch. course by darkening the relevant bubble in the OMR data sheet cannot contend that the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations should consider her application as one in WA No.1108 of 2010 -:4:- order and admit her for the B.Arch. course. In our considered opinion, the decision of the learned single Judge repelling her claim for such admission does not merit interference. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb