IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27875 of 2011(H) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SANDEEP.R., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, CHITIRA (VELIYIL), PAYALKULANGARA, KOMANA AMBALPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635. REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (EXAMINATIONS) 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673635. 3. THE NEHRU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & RESEARCH CENTRE, PAMPADI, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR, PIN -680597, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 27875 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FEE-RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 21-7-10. EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 27-9-11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION MARK STATEMENT DATED 15-5-10. EXT.P4 THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ISSUED FROM THE SAINIK SCHOOL FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27875 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was admitted for B.Tech Course during the academic year 2010-11 in the Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre, Pampadi in Palakkad District. He is presently aggrieved by Ext.P2 memo issued by the University cancelling his registration for B.Tech. The ground mentioned in Ext.P2 is that the minimum required percentage of marks for Mathematics for an OBC candidate like the petitioner is 45% whereas the petitioner had only 43% marks. It is this order, which is under challenge. 2. Petitioner does not have a case that in the 12th standard examination, he had atleast 45% marks for Mathematics, which is the minimum prescribed. If that be so, petitioner admittedly is an ineligible candidate and the cancellation of registration as ordered by the University cannot be faulted. Counsel contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner is ineligible, still the fault lies with the college and therefore having permitted the petitioner to undergo courses thus far, his registration could not be cancelled now. I am unable to WPC No. 27875/11 :2 : agree. Even if it is assumed that the college has committed a mistake unknowingly or otherwise, when the matter came to the knowledge of the University, University has rightly cancelled the registration. Therefore, the fact that the College has committed mistake or permitted the petitioner to study thus far, cannot be held against the University when it sought to correct the said mistake. In that view, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and grant relief to him. For the aforesaid reasons, I am also unable to apply the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur (1989(1) SCC 399) and Sanathan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors. (1990(3) SCC 23). Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp