IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2007 / 27TH ASWINA 1929 WP(C).No. 26938 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DHANYA P,PALLIKUTH HOUSE,PAYYANAD P.O, MANJERI VIA. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM,KOZHIKODE. 2. THE PRINCIPAL & CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL,GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE. BY SC FOR UNIVERSITY, SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C). 26938/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a B.H.M.S student at ANSS Homeo Medical College, Kottayam. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to approve her transfer and issue instructions to get herself admitted in the Government Homeo Medical College, Kozhikode. For this purpose petitioner relies on Ext.P3 judgment of this Court and also the judgment in W.P.(C). 7626/2007. According to her, by this judgment transfers have been allowed and her case is also a similar one and therefore she should be granted admission. 2. University has filed a statement where it is stated that the course is conducted in accordance with the Homeo Council Regulations, 1994, and that governs transfer of students from one college to the other as well. It is submitted that for regulating the transfer, University has also framed guidelines as early on 21.12.1994 and it is on that basis, the eligibility is worked out. It is pointed out that the annual intake of students is only 50 and that W.P.(C).26938/2007 2 the maximum available seats for transfer is 6%, ie, only three seats. It is submitted that in terms of the guidelines, rank list has been prepared by the University of those who have requested for transfer and the same has been published in which petitioner is only No.7 and therefore, she is not eligible for claiming the benefit of transfer, since the maximum permissible seats is only three. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. If as a matter of fact, respondents are governed by the Homeo Council Regulations, 1994, and the guidelines of 21.12.1994, a departure from the guideline cannot be directed. 4. According to the respondents, maximum annual intake is only 50 and upper limit for transfer is only 6%. If that be so, in an year, only three students can aspire to be accommodated in the transfer quota. Since the petitioner is only No.7 in the rank list, she cannot claim transfer overlooking ranking of other students. 5. In so far as the judgments relied on by the petitioner are concerned, learned counsel for the W.P.(C).26938/2007 3 respondents explain that the same was rendered at the admission stage and that they had no occasion to point out the regulations to the Court when these judgments were rendered. 6. Be that as it may, petitioner's eligibility can be reckoned only in terms of the guidelines. Therefore, as at present relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 7. However, it is the petitioner's contention that persons having higher rank in the list relied on by the University have not sought accommodation in the quota and therefore, she should be transferred and accommodated. She is certainly justified in this claim. Therefore, the only direction that can be granted is that the third respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner for accommodating her in the transfer quota in accordance with the guidelines referred to and I do so. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC Judge mrcs