Judgment :- 1. The petitioner applied for admission to B. A. three year course in economics or history (main) in the Government Brennen College, Tellicherry. The application was submitted within the time prescribed, i. e. before 19 61965. The petitioner had passed the University Previous examination held in March 1965. The application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner took more than two chances to complete the qualifying examination. 2. The rule for selecting applicants for admission to the degree course in the Government Brennen College, Tellicherry, is the same as that followed by the University College, Trivandrum. The rule is this: "Applicants who have taken more than two chances to complete the qualifying examination (Intermediate or University Previous or B. A/ B. Sc.) are not eligible for admission. However, for subjects in which there is no rush for admission (like languages, history, Islamic history, politics, etc.) applicants who have taken more than two chances may apply for exemption from the chance rules and Government (formerly the University) may exempt them. This rule does not apply to candidates belonging to Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes." 3. In his application the petitioner was bound to state whether he passed the qualifying examination at first appearance, and if not the year and register number of each appearance. In the petitioner's application the petitioner stated that in September 1963 his register number is 10321 First Part and in March 1965 his register number is 12361, Part II. As the above statement suggested that the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination at two appearances, Exts. P.1 and P. 2 cards were issued to him. But at the time of the admission the petitioner admitted that he has taken four chances to pass the qualifying examination. Therefore he was refused admission. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rule referred to above has no statutory force and therefore the Principal of the college should not have fettered his discretion to admit the petitioner by relying on it. In support of this contention petitioner's counsel referred me to the ruling reported in Baskaran v. State of Kerala (1960 K L. T. 543) where a Division Bench of this court is held that it is not open to an administrative authority when exercising its discretion to fetter itself by self-imposed rules and not to consider the case on its own merit. 5. 5. It was in pursuance to the direction of the Director of Collegiate Education that the rule obtaining in the. University College, Trivandrum, was extended to the college in question. The question whether a candidate applying for admission to a Government college could be denied admission on the basis of a non-statutory rule framed by the Government came up for consideration in O. P. No. 2051 of 1965 and I have held that it is open to the Government to prescribe additional qualifications for admissions in colleges run by Government over and above the qualifications prescribed by the University. Following that decision I hold that the Principal of the college was entitled to refuse admission to the petitioner on the basis of the rule referred to above. 6. As I have already stated the rule has been followed in this college on the basis of the direction of the Director of Collegiate Education; and I do not think that the Principal has a discretion not to follow the rule. I am not able to perceive how this rule will lead to any discrimination. On the other hand if exemptions are granted from this rule that may lead to discrimination. 7. In these circumstances, I think I cannot issue the writ prayed for by the petitioner. 8. The petition fails It is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Dismissed.