IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27020 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ASWATHY.P. (MINOR), D/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, NJARUVELICHIRA, PERUMTHURUTHU, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PURUSHOTHAMAN, NJARUVELICHIRA HOUSE, MUHAMMA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 3. DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 4. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27020 of 2010 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T In response to Ext.P3 prospectus published for admission to various courses including B.Sc Optometry, the petitioner submitted her application seeking admission in the physically handicapped quota. It is stated that on the strength of Ext.P1 certificate of disability, she was granted admission and she joined the course as well. Subsequently, acting upon Ext.P8 issued by the third respondent, the second respondent has issued Ext.P7, cancelling the admission of the petitioner. It is challenging Exts.P7 and P8 this writ petition is filed. 2. Petitioner submits that going by the provisions of Ext.P3 prospectus, a candidate with 40% disability is eligible for admission in the physically handicapped quota. It is stated that Ext.P1 certificate of disability certified her disability at 45% and, therefore, being an eligible candidate, her admission could not have been cancelled. 3. However, Clause 5(3) of the prospectus provides that though 40% is the minimum disability required for admission, a WPC.27020/10 : 2 : State Level Committee constituted by the Government in the manner as provided in sub-clause (4) will examine and assess the disability of the candidates, who are provisionally included in the physically handicapped category. It is stated that only those candidates, who are having minimum 40% disability and are found to be physically suitable by the Committee for the courses opted by them, will be chosen for the course. Ext.P8 shows that a Committee as provided in the prospectus was constituted and that the Committee examined the petitioner and assessed that she has disability only of 30%. It is stated that it was therefore the petitioner’s admission was cancelled. 4. When this matter came up for orders before this Court on 31-08-2010, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain the disability certificate issued by the Committee so constituted. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has produced the certificate which shows that the disability of the petitioner was found to be only 30%. 5. It is obvious that in terms of the provisions of the prospectus, the disability of the petitioner was assessed and WPC.27020/10 : 3 : disability was found to be only 30%. If that be so, the petitioner does not possess the minimum required disability of 40% in order to enable her to seek admission in the physically handicapped quota. Therefore, in terms of the prospectus, her admission was liable to be cancelled and this is what has been done by Exts.P7 and P8. I do not find any illegality warranting interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks