B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE only point for determination in this case is whether the exemption granted for appearing in school final examination i. e. , S. S. C. will also enure to the benefit of further studies. I am of the considered view that any exemption granted will enure to the benefit of candidate only for that particular examination, but the same cannot be extended to other studies or for taking up other career. In the instant case, the petitioner seeks for admission into first year of the medical course which is preceded by the entrance examination in that regard. The cut-off date is 31st December of the year of admission and the minimum age prescribed is 17 years while the maximum age is 22 years. Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad vehemently contends that his client i. e. , the petitioner is a very extraordinary student, and as such, he could complete his S. S. C. examination even before the attainment of 15 years, which was the age prescribed for taking S. S. C. Examination. His contention is that when exemption has been granted enabling the petitioners to appear for S. S. C. examination, there is no reason or justification as to why the same should not enure to further courses. He relies upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik vs. University of Delhi and by this Court in M. Raji Reddy vs. Superintending Engineer, APSEB, Warangal and K. Laxma Reddy vs. Principal I. T. I. , Government College Bhongir. In Meenakshi Malik vs. University of Delhi, the question that fell for consideration is regarding residence qualification. It was held that where a minor child accompanies the parents, who are in foreign service, and because of the compulsion, the parents had to leave the country along with the child, the child cannot be deprived of her residential status, and as such, relief was granted to her. That has got no bearing to this case. In M. Raji Reddy vs. Superintending Engineer, APSEB, Warangal, I followed the said judgment, and as such, that cannot be applied to this case. Yet another judgment pressed by Sri Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is K. Laxma Reddy vs. Principal I. T. I. , Government College, Bhongir where my learned brother, Motilal B. Naik, J. , has held that three years rule to pass out the examination should not be treated as mandatory and rigidly and that as the circumstances were beyond the control of the student as she was afflicted with polio, more time should have been granted and it was granted in that case. The same has got no application here as, in the instant case, it cannot be said that fixation of minimum and maximum age is only directory and not mandatory. As I read from the tenor of the concerned provision, the minimum and maximum ages fixed are mandatory in nature and it is specifically mentioned at the foot of the admission rules that no relaxation shall be granted with regard to the age restriction. If that be so, it has to be held that requirement of age, both minimum and maximum, is mandatory and not directory. It is needless to mention that while construing the provision, the intention underlying the provision and object has got to be considered. In professional courses like medicine and engineering, the authorities felt proper that for proper maturity and understanding of the course, minimum age requirement is necessary and that is based on intelligible differentia. There is a nexus for the object to be achieved and the classification of 17 years and below 17 years is based on rational aspect. Sri Prasad raised yet another contention that note 3 to admission rules framed by the University of Health Sciences has got no statutory force and that it is violative of G. O. Ms. No. 184 dated 20th August, 1993. I do not concur with this contention for the reason that in the said G. O. , there is no specific rule empowering a student to seek for any exemption. As there is no clash between the rules framed in the above G. O. , and the admission rules, the ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document