IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19823 of 2007(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------------- AMRUTHA VENUGOPAL, AGED 17 YEARS, (DOB-20/12/1989), MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER VENUGOPAL, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR (LATE), 21/819 'UDAYAM', PAI ROAD, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHI POST, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR, AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, AROGYABHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, PARASSINIKKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 ADV. MR.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19823 of 2007(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - A COPYOF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION CAME ON 13.4.2007 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY EXT.P2 - A COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE CERTIFICATE COURSE IN AYURVEDA PHARMACIST FOR THE YEAR 2006-07. EXT.P3 - A COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONER SENT THE APPLICATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - A COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT COLLEGE. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P.(C)No. 19823 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for the certificate course in Ayurveda Pharmacist for the year 2007-2008. The Government sanctioned that course to the 3rd respondent institute for the academic year 2006-2007. But the course could not be started that year. Therefore when admissions were made for the year 2007-2008, the prospectus and application forms printed for the year 2006-2007 were issued to the candidates who applied for admission. As per clause 2 of Ext.P2 prospectus, the age limit was between 17 years and 23 years. But it was stated in the prospectus that the age would be decided as on 1.6.2006. Since, for the year 2007-2008, the prospectus should have been appropriately amended to make it 1.6.2007, the petitioner also submitted application for admission. But she had not completed the age of 17 years as on 1.6.2006 but she completed the age of 17 years only on 1.6.2007. But relying on clause 2 of Ext.P2 prospectus, on the ground that she had not completed 17 years of age as on 1.6.2006, the respondents refused to consider the petitioner for admission to the course for the year W.P.(C)No. 19823 of 2007 -2- 2007-2008. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs: “a) Declare that a candidate between the age 17 and 23 as on 1.6.2007 are eligible to apply for the certificate course in Ayurveda Pharmacist for the year 2007-08 course. b) Declare that since prospectus for the academic year 2006-2007 is issued for the course in 2007-2008, the eligibility for the course regarding minimum age will be decided as on 1.6.2007. c) Issue a writ order or direction directing the respondents not to reject the application of the petitioner for the reason that she has not completed 17 years as on 1.6.2006.” 2. At the time of admission, I had granted an interim order as prayed for on 28.6.2007. The interim relief prayed for was for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to reject the application submitted by the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner did not complete the age of 17 years as on 1.6.2006. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which the 1st respondent takes the stand that since as per the prospectus the age has to determined as on 17.1.2006, the petitioner cannot claim admission since as on that date, she had not completed 17 years of age. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The 1st respondent does not dispute the fact that the prospectus printed for the year 2006-2007 was distributed to the candidates. That being so, the cut of date fixed for deciding age W.P.(C)No. 19823 of 2007 -3- limit can only be with reference to the admission for the year 2006- 2007. It could only have been by over-sight that the date had not been correspondingly changed for the year 2007-2008. Even otherwise for admission for the year 2007-2008, age as on 1.6.2006 is totally irrelevant. The 1st respondent cannot fix the arbitrary date for that purpose. Therefore the fixation of date 1.6.2006 for the purpose of deciding the age for admission is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable. In the above circumstances, the age of the candidates for the purpose of admission should have been properly amended as 1.6.2007. I am satisfied that the petitioner could not have been denied admission on the ground that she had not completed the age of 17 years as on 1.6.2006. Therefore pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner had been given admission, that admission would be treated as regular and accordingly I direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the course as if she was validly admitted. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs