IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34522 of 2007(I)
1. ASWATHY P.V.,
... Petitioner
2. BINDU K.GEORGE,
3. MARY HIMA K.V.,
4. MARY PRINCY M.P.,
5. MELVIN MARY A.A.,
6. PREETHY ABRAHAM,
7. ROSE MARY A.R.,
8. SHEMLA CORREYA,
9. BEJEENI BABY,
10. ASWATHI K.B.,
11. THAZNEEM K.M.,
12. RAJEETHA RAVINDRAN,
13. EMY VARGHESE,
14. SURESH M.S.,
15. CHRIS CYRUS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. ST. JOSEPH TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE
5. NATIONAL TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE,
6. ASSISSI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE,
7. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.34522 OF 2007 I
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against
Ext.P7, which has been issued by the 1st respondent in
pursuance to the direction of this court in Ext.P6
judgment.
2. The facts of the case are that though the
petitioners are students, who did not have 50% marks to
be admitted for TTC, they were admitted inspite of
their ineligibility. Writ petition was filed by
similarly situated students claiming that irrespective
of their ineligibility to be admitted, they should be
allowed to continue the course. That was the issue
that was considered in Ext.P6 judgment, where this
court has already held that no direction as sought for
could be granted. But however, it was ordered that
Government will consider whether relaxation should be
sought for from the 7th respondent reducing the minimum
eligibility fixed. This issue has been considered by
W.P.(C) No. 34522 OF 2007 2
the Government and by the impugned order, Government
decided that the minimum eligibility will continue to
be 50% and that relaxation need not be sought for. It
is this order, which is challenged in this writ
petition.
3. As already noticed, the claim for relaxing the
minimum mark to make the students eligible to seek
admission has already been considered by this court and
negatived in Ext.P6. In the light of Ext.P6, the
petitioners are not entitled to get the prayer sought
for in this writ petition. Further, now that the
Government has decided not to reduce the eligibility
criteria, one cannot take any exception to such a
policy decision.
I do not find any merit in this writ petition and
it is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
Rp/-