IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27020 of 2010(B)
1. ASWATHY.P. (MINOR),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
3. DIRECTOR,
4. PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.LAL GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 27020 of 2010 B
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In response to Ext.P3 prospectus published for
admission to various courses including B.Sc Optometry, the
petitioner submitted her application seeking admission in the
physically handicapped quota. It is stated that on the strength of
Ext.P1 certificate of disability, she was granted admission and she
joined the course as well. Subsequently, acting upon Ext.P8
issued by the third respondent, the second respondent has issued
Ext.P7, cancelling the admission of the petitioner. It is challenging
Exts.P7 and P8 this writ petition is filed.
2. Petitioner submits that going by the provisions of
Ext.P3 prospectus, a candidate with 40% disability is eligible for
admission in the physically handicapped quota. It is stated that
Ext.P1 certificate of disability certified her disability at 45% and,
therefore, being an eligible candidate, her admission could not
have been cancelled.
3. However, Clause 5(3) of the prospectus provides that
though 40% is the minimum disability required for admission, a
WPC.27020/10
: 2 :
State Level Committee constituted by the Government in the
manner as provided in sub-clause (4) will examine and assess the
disability of the candidates, who are provisionally included in the
physically handicapped category. It is stated that only those
candidates, who are having minimum 40% disability and are found
to be physically suitable by the Committee for the courses opted
by them, will be chosen for the course. Ext.P8 shows that a
Committee as provided in the prospectus was constituted and that
the Committee examined the petitioner and assessed that she has
disability only of 30%. It is stated that it was therefore the
petitioner’s admission was cancelled.
4. When this matter came up for orders before this Court
on 31-08-2010, this Court directed the learned Government
Pleader to obtain the disability certificate issued by the Committee
so constituted. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has
produced the certificate which shows that the disability of the
petitioner was found to be only 30%.
5. It is obvious that in terms of the provisions of the
prospectus, the disability of the petitioner was assessed and
WPC.27020/10
: 3 :
disability was found to be only 30%. If that be so, the petitioner
does not possess the minimum required disability of 40% in order
to enable her to seek admission in the physically handicapped
quota. Therefore, in terms of the prospectus, her admission was
liable to be cancelled and this is what has been done by Exts.P7
and P8.
I do not find any illegality warranting interference. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks