IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18399 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- HUSSAIN.Y., AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.YOOSUF KUNJU, PANIKANTE KIZHAKKETHIL, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION D47,N.D.S.E., PART I, NEW DELHI-110 049. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KARIKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAKERSWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J =================== W.P (C) .No. 18399 of 2008 =================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging a clause in the prospectus issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination for admission to the professional courses in Kerala for the year 2008, whereby the minimum qualifying marks for higher secondary examination is fixed as 50% marks in Mathematics separately, and 50% marks in Mathematics/Physics and Chemistry/Bio-Technology/ Computer Science/Biology put together as eligibility condition for admission. The contention raised by the petitioner is that as per the AICTE Regulations, any minimum marks for eligibility for the entrance test need not be prescribed in the case of degree courses and all students who have passed the qualifying examination may be permitted to appear for the entrance test. The petitioner would contend that clause 6.2.2 in Ext.P3 prospectus is W.P (C) .No. 18399 of 2008 - 2 - against the regulations of the AICTE. He therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) To call for the records relating to Exhibits-P1 and P3 and to issue a writ of Certiorari and to set-aside Clause 6.2.2 of the prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent for the Common Entrance examination for the year 2008 which is marked as Exhibit P3. ii) To direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to declare that those are qualified for entrance examination as per exhibit P2 guidelines issued by the 3rd respondent are eligible for Admission for B.Tech, and not to consider the stipulated qualification specified in Clause 6.2.2 of the prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent for the Common Entrance examination for the year 2008 as eligibility criteria. 2. I have heard the Learned Government Pleader also, who opposes the prayers. According to him the prospectus was issued in January 2008 and the petitioner is challenging the same after having applied pursuant to that prospectus and having failed to get the minimum marks prescribed, in the qualifying examination. According to the learned Government Pleader, this is not permissible as per decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. He further contends that it is settled the law that the standard prescribed by the AICTE is only a bench mark and the State Governments are W.P (C) .No. 18399 of 2008 - 3 - empowered to fix a higher standard than those fixed by the AICTE. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader the prospectus was issued in the January 2008 and the petitioner was very well aware about the eligibility conditions prescribed. The petitioner did not challenge the clause in the prospectus, but he applied pursuant to the prospectus knowing very well about the eligibility conditions prescribed therein. Thereafter, he wrote the qualifying examination and failed to obtain the prescribed eligibility marks. The petitioner cannot now be allowed to challenge the conditions in the prospectus at this 13th hour which if allowed would totally upset the entire selection process. Further, it is settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court that the State Governments are empowered to fix a higher standard than those fixed by AICTE and similar institutions. Here, what has been prescribed in the W.P (C) .No. 18399 of 2008 - 4 - prospectus is a higher standard than what has been prescribed by the AICTE. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner on merit also. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs