IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 21780 of 2008(P) 1. EVELINE MARIA JOSE, MINOR, REP. BY ... Petitioner Vs 1. AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ... Respondent 2. JUBILEE MISSION MEDICAL COLLEGE AND 3. MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH 4. PUSHPAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 5. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY 6. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS 7. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE 8. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS 9. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY 10. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, REP For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :23/07/2008 O R D E R S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 21780 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an aspirant for admission to a self-financing
Medical College. The admission to that college was as per Ext. P3
prospectus. The petitioner applied pursuant to that prospectus.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner has got all the
qualifications prescribed for admission as per Ext. P3. But the
petitioner was denied admission on the ground that the petitioner did
not have 50% marks in the common entrance test conducted by the
Commissioner of Entrance Examination. According to the petitioner,
in Ext. P3, 50% marks in CET was not an eligibility criteria prescribed
and therefore the 3rd respondent could not have insisted on the same
as an eligibility criterion for admission.
The question as to whether Ext. P3 prescribes 50% marks in the
CET as an eligibility criteria was considered by me in W.P(C) No.
21998/2008. In that writ petition, I came to the conclusion that in
view of the specific prescription in Ext. P3 that the norms of eligibility
prescribed by the MCI and respective Universities will also be
applicable for this admission, the eligibility condition prescribed by
the MCI is also applicable for Ext. P3, which includes minimum 50%
marks in Common Entrance Test. The same applies squarely to this
case also. In fact, the admission sought for in this case is also to the
same college as in the other writ petition. Therefore, following that
judgment, this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if any of
the respondents takes any steps contrary to the provisions in Ext. P3
for making admission to the course, it would be open to the petitioner
to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
P.S to Judge.