Application having reached addressee beyond time if can be rejected.

Janarthanam, J.

Challenging the selection of students for Professional Course for the academic year 1994-95, a batch of writ petitions C.S.R.Bhupeshkar v. The Secretary, Selection Committee, Madras and another, W.P.No.12517 of 1994 etc., batch of cases had been filed and they were heard at length, by a Division Bench of this Court, comprising one of us (Raju, J.) and AR.Lakshmanan, J. By a common order dated 111. 1994, the said Bench referred those matters to a Full Bench on the following reasoning:

“14. After careful consideration of all these we are of the view that these writ petitions deserve as also are required to be considered by a larger Bench than a Division Bench. Some of the issues particularly one relating to the reservation in excess of 50%, the validity of T.N. Act 45 of 1994 and the applicability of reservation policy to Payment Seats, involve substantial questions of Law relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution and are of great general and public importance. Further, we find that some of the issues though have been raised and answered on more than one occasion by various Benches (single, as well as Division Benches) relentlessly the same points are raised once over again every year in respect of some selection or the other for admission to Professional Courses, under the pretext of seeking reconsideration of such earlier rulings even de hors any justification or for any substantial reasons taking advantage merely of the fact that these issues have been earlier adjudicated by single or Division Benches of this Court. To give a quietus to all these and to have an effective and final adjudication of some of these often recurring important and vital questions of Law, we consider it appropriate and necessary that these writ petitions shall be placed before a Larger Bench than a Division Bench to hear and dispose of these cases and decide such issues.”

Consequently, those matters were listed before us.

2. In the meantime, the State Government of Tamil Nadu announced that in the matter of reservation, the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India for the academic year in question were complied with fully. Therefore, it was agreed to by all the parties that the question of reservation need not be decided in those cases.

3. The remaining questions, which fell for consider ation in those cases, are reflected, as below:

"(A) (i) Has any candidate been selected by implementing G.O. Ms.No.118, dated 22. 1994?

.(ii) Is the withdrawal of the G.O. by the Government illegal and arbitrary?

.(B) Has any fraud been played in the guise of retotalling the marks awarded in the qualifying examinations?

.(C) Should the marks awarded in the qualifying examinations be totally ignored and fresh selection be directed on the basis of marks-awarded in the entrance examination?

.(D) Has there been any fraud in the valuation of answer scripts in the entrance examination?

.(E) Is the method of selection contrary to Clause 8.2(a) of the prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education?

.(F) Is the reservation provided in Clause 3.5 of the prospectus for special categories in Government Colleges violative of Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India?

.(G) Is the allotment of seats in Perundhurai Medical College to the wards of employees of the Transport Corporation illegal?

.(H) Miscellaneous questions arising in some individual cases.

4. Those questions have been considered and the aforesaid batch of cases have been disposed of by a common order dated 212. 1994; of course, delinking the present writ petition thereform (and directing another Writ Petition No.13976 of 1994 to be posted in the usual course). The present action has therefore been posted separately before us for disposal.

5. The petitioner had been successful in the Higher Secondary Examination held in March, 1993. However, he appeared for the improvement examination held in March, 1994 in the subject, ‘Physics’.