IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19750 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REMYA RAJ, D/O.RAJU, AGED 19 YEARS, M.S.SADHANAM, THACHANKONAM, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, INDIRA GANDHI SPORTS COMPLEX, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110 002. 2. KERALA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL, HEERA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 568. SC SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY SC SRI. M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, KERALA UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19750 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT OF PERTITIONER IN THE CENTRAL ALLOTMENT PROCESS DATED NIL EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF PAYMENT SLIP OF RS.35,000/- DATED 18.10.2010 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF FURTHER FEES UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS OF RS.13,800/- DATED 19.10.2010 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF HOSTEL FEES OF RS.10,000/- DATED 19.10.2010 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF PTA CONTRIBUTION OF RS.1000 DATED 19.10.2010 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION, 2010 DATED 31.7.2010 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF MARK SHEET DATED 31.7.2010 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSE 6.2.2(a) OF PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS, 2008 RECAPULATED IN THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY COLLEGE EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF ADMIT CARD OF FIRST SEMESTER EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF FEE RECEIPT OF RS.51,155/- DATED 7.6.2011 EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 22.6.2011 (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C).19750/2011 .......................................... Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT In response to Ext.P9 prospectus petitioner made application for admission to B.Tech in the third respondent College. She was admitted and according to the petitioner, fees due was also remitted. Now she has been removed from the College as per Ext.P12 which reads as follows:- “Kerala University has declined to register for University examination on the ground that you have not obtained minimum marks for the qualifying examination. Though the above matter has been informed to you at the time of admission, you have claimed to produce an improved mark at the earliest. But it did not happen and the College authorities also did not follow up the matter. Since the University has not allowed to register for University examinations, it is not fair to continue the course, hence discontinue the course with immediate effect.” It is on receipt of Ext.P12, this writ petition has been filed, with the following prayers:- W.P.(C).19750/11 2 (i). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to continue the course of B.Tech in the stream of Computer Science and Engineering and to complete the course. (ii). To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P12. (iii). To declare that condition for admission in University Regulations 2008 prescribing qualifying marks in the qualifying examination as ultravires of All India Council For Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admission in Professional Colleges) Regulations 1994. 2. As far as the challenge against the University Regulations mentioned in Ext.P9 are concerned, the case of the petitioner is that, so long as AICTE Regulations do not prescribe any minimum marks, University could not have prescribed the same. I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that even in the absence of any minimum mark W.P.(C).19750/11 3 prescribed by the AICTE, it is always open to the University to prescribe better standards in the matter of admission to the Colleges affiliated to it. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is only to be rejected and I do so. 3. From Ext.P12 it is evident that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility conditions laid down in Ext.P9 and it is therefore, the University declined to register her for examinations. Petitioner has no case that her ineligibility mentioned in Ext.P12 is incorrect. If that be so, petitioner could not have been admitted to the Course. Consequently, the stand of the University in declining registration also could not be said to be illegal. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs