JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication through which the application submitted by the 2^nd petitioner for certification as the ward of a person insured under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short ‘the ESI Act’) has been rejected by the Competent Authority. The certificate certifying the 2^nd petitioner to be the ‘Ward of an Insured Person’ was sought for applying to seats reserved for wards of insured persons in ESIC Medical Colleges for the academic year 2025-2026. According to the petitioners, the 1^st petitioner, who is the mother of the 2^nd petitioner, is an insured person under the ESI Act, and the 2^nd petitioner was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the quota reserved for wards of insured persons in terms of Ext.P1 notification.

2. Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, refers to the terms of Ext.P1 and contends that the denial of the certificate, which was necessary for the purposes of making an application for admission to the MBBS course in ESIC Medical Colleges under the quota reserved for wards of insured persons, cannot be sustained in law. It is pointed out that for th