This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 10.2.2009 issued by the first respondent to the third respondent vide Annexure-E.

1. The Petitioner on being declared pass in the Pre-University examination, secured 39.75% in the aggregate of marks in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and though fell short of 0.25% marks for admission to the course in B.Sc., Nursing, was sponsored by the 2nd respondent Department of Social Welfare, and secured an admission in the 3rd respondent college for the academic year 2008-09, which when not approved by the letter dated 10.2.2009, Annexure-‘E’ of the 1st respondent, has presented this Petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Petitioner belongs to schedule Caste and contends that in similar circumstances, a candidate having fallen short of 0.12% marks in the aggregate in the Degree Examination, and the admission to MCA course, cancelled, in Rajeev M. –Vs- The Registrar, Visvesvaraya Technological University, in W.P.NO.51369/04 dated 15.9.2006, a learned single judge, following the reported opinions of this court as well as the Apex Court, having a bearing on the questions for determination, set-aside the cancellation of the admission and permitted the completion of the course. Learned counsel would place reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore University –Vs- Ms. Natasha Indi, in W.A.No.2520/02, D.D.21.2.2008, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, making an exception to the general principle, by permitting admission of a candidate falling short of 0.05%marks, on having completed the course by virtue of the interim order.

3. Sri. K. Krishna, Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent University contends that no equity lies in favour of the petition, who fell short of 0.25% marks in the aggregate of the relevant subjects, for admission to the course in B.Sc. Nursing, and that the illegality in the admission of the petitioner to the said course by the 3rd Respondent College is writ large. The absence of a power to show indulgence by reducing the eligibility norm of 40% to 39.75%, it is contended the petitioner has no right to seek admission to the said course. In addition it is contended that the fixing of eligibility norm for admission is salutory and subserves public interest moreso when the candidate would have to serve sickly patients, and assist in the Medical Profession. It is lastly contended that in Rajeev’s case, a learned single judge, observed that the authorities admitted an otherwise ineligible candidate, either upon a mistaken notion or on a bonafide misconstruction of a provision, coupled with the candidate having secured interim order to prosecute 2/3 of the course. According to the learned counsel it being the fault of the candidate in seeking admission to the course, knowing fully well that she did not obtain the required percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, no equity lies in her favour.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, and the opinion of this court, in my opinion, no equity lies in favour of the petitioner. The decisions relied upon do not further the case of the petitioner. I say so because, the factum of obtaining 39.75% of marks in aggregate in the relevant subjects, was a knowledge specially known to the petitioner, who applied for and obtained an admission in the 3rd Respondent College, who too knowing that the petitioner was ineligible, did admit her to the said course in B.Sc. Nursing. The 3rd Respondent though served with the notice of this petition has remained absent and is unrepresented. So also the 2nd Respondent Department of social welfare too with the knowledge that the petition was ineligible, for admission to the said course sponsored her candidature. Thus it is not a case of bonafide mistake in admitting the petitioner to th