Heard Mr.M.V.Muralidaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel for the respondents who has also filed counter affidavit.
2. The writ petitioner has completed his Plus Two examination in March, 2009. However, he failed in one of the subjects, namely Business Maths in which he secured 42 marks, whereas the required mark is 70 out of 200. It appears that the petitioner has subsequently appeared for the supplementary examination for the said subject, viz., Business Maths in June, 2009 and secured 91 marks. Based on the said appearance in June, 2009 examination, it appears that the father of the petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent on 10.8.2009 with a request to permit the petitioner to join in the 5 year B.A.,B.L. Degree course. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was sent a card for counseling on 6.8.2009, calling upon the petitioner to participate in the counseling on 22.8.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the same he was not allowed to participate in the counseling which has resulted in filing of the present writ petition for a direction against the respondents to admit the petitioner in the 5 year B.A.,B.L. Degree Course 2009-2010 in the first respondent Government Colleges pursuant to the counseling session letter dated 6.8.2009 issued by the second respondent.
3.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that when the petitioner filed the first application bearing No.502522 for admission to the 5 year B.A.,B.L. Degree Course, he failed in one of the subjects, viz., Business Maths and therefore, he was not eligible and his application was rejected. However, after passing the failed subject in June, 2009, the petitioner's father has made another application bearing No.502547. While it is admitted that the counseling letter was sent to the petitioner on 6.8.2009, it is the case of the respondents that the same was sent by mistake, without referring to the qualification aspect of the petitioner.
3.2. As per the information booklet of the respondents, the candidate who applies for 5 year B.A.,B.L. Degree course should have passed all the subjects in the Plus Two examination in the first attempt. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has passed one of the subjects, viz., Business Maths in the second attempt during the supplementary examination held in June, 2009 and by mistake the counseling letter was sent. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondents relied on Clause 6 of the Information Booklet which stipulates the mode of selection.
3.3. It is further stated that the petitioner is not coming within the eligible criteria and zone of consideration, since he has secured only 49 marks while the cut-off mark of the last candidate admitted in the Scheduled Caste category is 51.750 marks.
4. In the information booklet given in the form of prospectus for the 5 Year B.A.,B.L. Degree Course 2009-2010 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Clause 6 stipulates the mode of selection and sub-clause 2 to Clause 6 specifies that for admission to the first year of 5 Year B.A.,B.L. Degree Course the marks obtained by the candidate in the first attempt alone will be taken into consideration and the marks obtained in the improvement examinations shall not be taken into account by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.83, Law (LS) Department, dated 19.4.2007. The said portion of the information booklet is as follows:
"6. Mode of Selection:
(i) ***
(ii) The selection will be based on the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the Plus two examinations in aggregate of all the subjects excluding languages. The marks obtained by the students in the +2 examinations in the first attempt alone may be taken into account and the marks obtained by them in the improvement examinations shall not be taken into account (G.O.Ms.No.83 Law (LS) Department dt.19.04.2007)."
5. When the information booklet is clear that for the purpose of admission only the marks obtained in the first attempt should be taken into consideration, the petitioner, simply because the respondents by mistake have sent a counselling letter, cannot claim that he will confirm to the eligibility criteria fixed in the information booklet based on which the application has been made by the petitioner. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the petitioner secured only 49 marks whereas the cut-off mark prescribed for the Scheduled Case candidates is 51.750.
6. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not eligible for admission for the year 2009-2010, both based on the contents of the information booklet as well as the deficiency in the cut-off marks, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also applied under the Ex-servicemen category. Even otherwise, as it is found in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not eligible for admission as he has not passed Plus Two examination in first attempt and he was short of the cut-off marks required, there is no question of considering the petitioner under any special category.
In such view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is eligible as per the prospectus for the year 2010-2011, it is for the petitioner to apply for admission. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
sasi