P L KARTHIKA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) BY consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the term "Children" is an inclusive term and it would include grandchildren, as well. THErefore, the petitioner would be entitled to claim a seat for the M.B.B.S course, under the "children of freedom fighters" quota. THE learned counsel for the petitioner had also stated that even though grandchildren were being considered, under the special category, during the earlier years, for admission to the M.B.B.S course, the present prospectus for the academic year 2009-2010, does not include the word "grandchildren" under the special category. It has also been submitted that there would not be any candidate eligible to apply under the special category, since no freedom fighter would have young children who would be seeking admission for the M.B.B.S course, at this stage. In order to give a proper meaning and content to the word "children", under the special category, in the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for M.B.B.S/B.D.S admissions, for the academic year 2009-2010, the word should be taken to include grandchildren of freedom fighters, as well. As such, the petitioner would be qualified to apply for admission to the M.B.B.S course, for the academic year 2009-2010.