IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34385 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGIANNA THOMSSON, D/O. S.THOMSON, AGED 17 YEARS, NO.19.BALAJI NAGAR, PADIKUPPAM ROAD, ANNA NAGAR WEST CHENNAI 101, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN S.THOMSON, S/O.SESHAIYAN, AGED 46 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ISAT-2012, VALIAMALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695547. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE REGISTRAR, ISAT-2012, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695547. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34385/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION BROCHURE FOR THE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION PUBLISHED BY THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CAMP KENNEDY SPACE CENTRE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 11.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, ST.JOHN'S ACADEMY, CHENNAI DT 15.11.11. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, ST.JOHN'S ACADEMY, CHENNAI DT 22.11.11. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF REGISTRATION MADE FOR THE PETITIONER FOR JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 2012 BY THE RESPONDENTS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34385 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Plus Two student and it is stated that she has excellent academic records. In this writ petition, her grievance is regarding Clause 4 of Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is the information brochure published by the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, a deemed University under the UGC Act for the Entrance Examination to select candidates for the IIST B.Tech Programme through common entrance test (ISAT) conducted nation-wide. 2. In this brochure, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding Clause 4 which reads as under; “4. Minimum percentage of Marks in Class X or equivalent examination: Candidates belonging to GEN and OBC categories must have at least 70% marks in aggregate and those belonging to SC, ST and PD categories must have at least 60% marks in aggregate, taking into account all subjects.” 3. Clause 3 provides that candidates belonging to GEN WPC No.34385/11 :2 : and OBC categories require an aggregate of atleast 70% marks in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics in the qualifying examination of 10+2 or equivalent. As a result of Clause 4, GEN and OBC candidates should have atleast 70% marks in the aggregate and those belonging to SC and ST and physically disabled categories must have atleast 60% marks in the aggregate in Class X or equivalent examination. According to the petitioner, when the eligibility for appearance in the examination is a pass in the plus two and once percentage of marks for plus two examination is also prescribed, there is no justification for fixing a percentage of marks to be achieved by a candidate at the 10th level also. This is contended as arbitrary. 4. As already seen, applications are invited for admission to IIST B.Tech training programme. These courses are conducted by the 1st respondent and the entrance examination is also conducted by them only. Once the selection process is held by the 1st respondent, it is perfectly within the rights of the 1st respondent to lay down the eligibility norms as well. In this writ petition, there is no averment that the 1st respondent has acted without power or that the specifications contained in Ext.P1, WPC No.34385/11 :3 : particularly Clause 3 thereof, is against any statutory provision. Therefore, once the legality of the position is upheld, the logic or wisdom thereof is outside the domain of this court. For these reasons, I am not persuaded to think that there is anything objectionable in prescribing eligibility norms as contained in Ext.P1 warranting interference of this court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp