IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31627 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEJA LEKSHMI.S., NANDANAM, PANAPAD.P.O THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, LAL BAHADUR SASTRI CENTER FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE,SC,LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENC FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31627/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION BOOKLET GIVEN FOR PETITIONERS EXAMINATION VIZ PART I. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 25-09-2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESS BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17-11-2011. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL ISSUED TO ME FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31627 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had attempted for the SET examination which was held on 25/9/11 and the minimum required percentage of marks is 35, which is 42 out of 120 marks. Petitioner has secured only 41.75% and hence did not qualify. She made Ext.P3 representation to the LBS complaining that question Nos.7 and 49 were wrong. By Ext.P4, she was informed that since the results are already declared, nothing can be done at this late stage. It was thereupon this writ petition has been filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that Clause 14.1 of the prospectus provided that complaints, if any, regarding the question or answer should be made within five working days from the date of publication of the answer key. According to the counsel, test was held on 25/9/11, answer key was published on 28/9/11 and the last date for entertaining complaint was 3/10/11. It is submitted that within the permissible time, nine complaints were received and all the nine complaints were forwarded to the experts for their WPC No.31627/11 :2 : consideration and recommendation. 3. In so far as Ext.P3 is concerned, learned counsel submits that this was received only on 26/11/11, and that, by the time the results were already published on 2/11/11. 4. Any applicant who responded to the prospectus and appeared for the examination is bound by the conditions of the prospectus. Therefore, if at all the petitioner had any grievance regarding any of the questions or answers, the petitioner should have made a complaint within the time permitted in Clause 14.1 of the prospectus. Admittedly, this requirement was not complied with, and if that be so, the 2nd respondent cannot be faulted on the ground of refusal to entertain Ext.P3. 5. For that reason and also having regard to the fact that if at this late stage, Ext.P3 is allowed, that will result in upsetting the marks that are already awarded to the candidates who are not parties to the writ petition, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp