IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 06-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.12280 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Thenmozhi rep. By Father and Natural Guardian R.Arulmozhi, 4/593-1, Nanjappa Gounder Street, Teacher's Colony, Dharmapuri 636 701. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.State represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, 162, Periyar E.V.r.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to select the petitioner's daughter, namely, Kum.A.Thenmozhi, for the M.B.B.S course for the 2009-2010 Session, applied vide Application No.5627. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balachandar For Respondent : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate (R1 & R2) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to select the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ daughter, A.Thenmozhi (Application No.5627) for the M.B.B.S. Course, for the academic session 2009-2010. 4. The petitioner has stated that her daughter, A.Thenmozhi, had passed Higher Secondary course conducted by the State Board of School Examinations and had obtained the following marks in the various subjects, with a total of 1175 out of 1200. Tamil 192 out of 200 English 188 out of 200 Physics 199 out of 200 Chemistry 200 out of 200 Biology 196 out of 200 Mathematics 200 out of 200 5. It has been further stated that the petitioner's daughter was short of the age requirements for writing the 10th standard examinations. The Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, vide proceedings No.5534/C7/2006, dated 11.10.2006, had waived the prescribed age limit and had given consent to the petitioner for writing the 10th standard examinations. As she had obtained very good marks in the Higher Secondary examinations, she had applied for the M.B.B.S. course. She had applied to the second respondent, vide Application No.5627, for admission to the medical course of 2009-2010 session. 6. It has been further stated that in the general instructions found in the prospectus it has been stated that the candidate applying for the M.B.B.S course should have completed the age of 17 years, on or before 31.12.2009, and the evidence thereof should be produced. The petitioner's daughter falls short of the age limit prescribed by 37 days. However, in the prospectus for the Tamil Nadu Engineering admissions for the academic year 2009-2010 such an age limit has not been prescribed. It has been further stated that the Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, vide proceedings No.5534/C7/2006, dated 11.10.2006, had granted relaxation to R.Thenmozhi, the daughter of the petitioner, to write the 10th standard examinations. Thereafter, she was permitted to write the 12th standard examinations, without any hindrance. However, a representation, dated 15.6.2009, had been sent to the second respondent to consider the relaxation of the age limit for applying to the M.B.B.S. course. The second respondent had not considered the said representation, till date. The Provisional Medical List for the academic session 2009-2010, for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses had been released by the second respondent, on 29.6.2009, and it does not contain the name of the petitioner's daughter, even though she had scored very high marks in the plus two examinations. Probably the only reason for not considering the application of the petitioner is the age factor. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an order of age relaxation had been issued in favour of the petitioner's daughter, vide proceedings of the Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, vide proceedings No.5534/C7/2006, dated 11.10.2006, it is not open to the respondents to deny the privilege, subsequently, as they are estopped from doing so. When there is no prescribed age limit for applying for Tamil Nadu Engineering admissions, there is no good reason for prescribing such an age limit for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses. Further, the respondents had not considered the application of the petitioner for the M.B.B.S. course, arbitrarily, and without considering the representation of the petitioner. Even though the daughter of the petitioner comes from a most backward class community, she has done very well in the plus two examinations. However, she has been denied admission in the M.B.B.S. Course, unfairly and arbitrarily. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted based on instructions obtained from the respondents, that there is no provision, either in the prospectus for the admission of students in the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for the 2009- 2010 session, or in the other rules and regulations applicable to such admissions, empowering the respondents to relax the age limit prescribed for admission in the said courses. In the instructions issued to the candidates, it has been clearly stated that the candidate should have completed the age of 17 years, on or before 31st December, 2009. Such relaxation of the age limit, even if it had been granted to permit the petitioner's daughter to write the 10th standard examinations, it cannot be a precedent to be followed at the stage of her admission to the M.B.B.S. course. The issue of estoppel would not arise in such matters. If such a relaxation is granted it would cause a lot of confusion and chaos in the admission process. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. It cannot be said that the respondents are duty bound to grant relaxation of the age limit for the petitioner's daughter for applying to the M.B.B.S. Course, for the 2009-2010 academic session, based on the reason that she had been permitted to write the 10th standard examinations by granting relaxation of the age limit. Further, it cannot be held that the age limit fixed for entry into the medical course is arbitrary. It cannot be said that relaxation of age limit ought to be granted to the petitioner's daughter, for being considered for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course, merely for the reason that she had been permitted to write the 10th standard examinations based on the proceedings of the the Director of Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu Matriculation Schools, vide proceedings No.5534/C7/2006, dated 11.10.2006. Further, the issue of estoppel would not arise in the present case as the respondents had not granted the relaxation applicable to all future contingencies, by way of their previous proceedings. In such circumstances, it is clear that there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, it stands dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected M.P is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, 162, Periyar E.V.r.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. +1 cc to Mr.M.Balachander, Advocate, SR.No.29501 Writ Petition No.12280 of 2009 KS {CO} TP/8.7.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/