IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37119 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. C.M.KHYRUNEESA, PUNNASSERY HOUSE, ATHIYODI (P.O), KOORACHUNDU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SUHARA.K.K., KUNNATH VEEDU, KARASSERI.P.O., MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.SATHEESH PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, THE DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. AHALIA AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, P.B.NO.122, PALAKKAD. PIN-678 557. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, AHALIA AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL, P.B.NO.122, PALAKKAD. PIN-678 557. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37119 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners were working under the 1st respondent as Nurse Higher Grade and Nurse Grade-II. When the 3rd respondent invited applications for admission for the course of Pharmacist for the academic year 2009-2010, petitioners submitted their applications. Ext.P3 is the prospectus. According to the petitioners, although their age was above 25 years giving them the benefit of age relaxation of upper age limit prescribed for departmental candidates in Ext.P2, they were admitted by the 3rd respondent in the seats available in the management quota. However, based on Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent directing their removal from the college, 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P8 and Ext.P9, removing the petitioners from the college on the ground that they are over aged. It is challenging Exts.P7, P8 and P9, this writ petition is filed. 2. Contention raised by the petitioners is that they secured admission while working as Nurse. It is stated that therefore, they were eligible for relaxation of upper age limit. According to the petitioners, recognising their eligibility for the W.P.(C).No. 37119 OF 2010 2 benefit of the provisions contained in the Ext.P2 prospectus, prescribing the maximum age limit of 40 years for department candidates, they were granted admission. It is therefore contended that the conclusion in the Exts.P7, P8 and P9, they were over aged, is incorrect and illegal. 3. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the Government Pleader, although petitioners were working as Nurses, they sought admission pursuant to Ext.P1 prospectus and that too in the management quota. It is stated that for such seats when candidates are admitted, the maximum age prescribed as per Ext.P2 is 25 years. It is pointed out that the maximum age limit of 40 has been fixed for departmental candidates, securing admission by making application to the 2nd respondent, in the manner as prescribed in clause 6 and 7 of Ext.P2. It is therefore contended that, the benefit of upper age limit of 40 is available only to departmental candidates, who are securing admission in the seats earmarked for departmental quota and that since the petitioners did not fall in that category, they were ineligible for the benefit of upper age limit. W.P.(C).No. 37119 OF 2010 3 4. Admittedly, admission of the petitioners was in the management quota and for such seats, the upper age limit prescribed is 25 years. As far as the upper age limit prescribed for departmental candidates is concerned, that benefit of relaxation available only when admissions were made to seats reserved for departmental candidates and applications are received as per clause 6 and 7 of the Ext.P2 prospectus. Petitioners, who had secured admission in the management quota were therefore ineligible for the said benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit. Therefore, the admission granted to the petitioners were in violation of the eligibility norms laid down. If so, Exts.P7, P8 and P9 are legal cannot be interfered with. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb