Hussain A vs Sreesankaracharya University Of … on 12 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34134 of 2010(N)


1. HUSSAIN A, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SREESANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :12/11/2010

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P (C) No.34134 of 2010
                     --------------------------
             Dated this the 12th November, 2010

                        J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is aggrieved by Clause 5.2 of Ext.P2

prospectus issued by the University for Integrated M.Phil-

Ph.D in Urdu. By Clause 5.2 of the prospectus , age limit

for admission to the programme is fixed at 35 and that

the candidate should not have crossed the age of 35 as on

1.12.2010. Although in response to Ext.P2, petitioner has

made his application, he complains that his application is

not entertained for the reason that he has crossed the

aforesaid age limit. It is therefore this writ petition has

been filed seeking to quash the aforesaid provision of the

prospectus and to direct the respondents to permit the

petitioner to undergo the selection process for admission.

2. According to the learned standing counsel

appearing for the University, prospectus has been

prescribed by the University. It is submitted that age limit

has been prescribed considering the fact that this is a

regular course. It is well within the powers of the

W.P (C) No.34134 of 2010
2

University to frame the prospectus incorporating

conditions which it deems appropriate. Therefore,

modification of the prospectus is also a matter which is

well within the powers of the University. It is seen that for

modification of Clause 5.2 of the prospectus, petitioner has

already approached the Vice Chancellor by filing Ext.P3

representation.

3. Taking note of the aforesaid facts and also the

submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that, even the applicants who have responded to Ext.P2 is

less than the number of seats, I direct the second

respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation made by the

petitioner seeking modification of Ext.P2. Pending

consideration of Ext.P3, it is directed that the petitioner will

be permitted to appear for the written test which is now

scheduled to held on 15.11.2010. It is made clear that his

participation in the written test will be purely provisional

and further consideration of his candidature will depend

upon the decision to be taken by the Vice Chancellor on

Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner.

W.P (C) No.34134 of 2010
3

Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along

with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent,

for compliance.

Sd/-

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma

/True copy/

P.A to Judge