M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was a resident of Bokaro town of Dhanbad District in Bihar State, where he completed his secondary education by passing the All India School Examination in the year 1985. He produced Annexure-A, Statement of marks Card to demonstrate the same. It is necessary to mention here that All India Secondary school Certificate is being issued by the Central board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, after conducting common examination of them. A pass in All India Secondary School Examination is equalent to a pass in the S. S. L. C. Examination in Karnataka. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner was that his mother and other relatives came to Karnataka and therefore he desired to continue his further education in Karnataka. He wanted to get himself admitted to First Year P. U. C. He applied for a seat in the Nehru Arts, Science and Commerce college at Hubli where he was directed to obtain the eligibility certificate from the Director of pre-University Education, the respondent herein, so as to enable it to consider his case. He therefore approached the respondent with a representation as per Annexure-B seeking for the eligibility certificate. His request was rejected with an endorsement as per Annexure-C which reads: "returned with the information that the candidate is ineligible for admission to p. U. C. . . " ( 3 ) AGGREIVED by this endorsement, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) THE contention urged in support of the Writ Petition is that the respondent was wrong in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for issuing the eligibility certificate inasmuch as, according to him, he has passed an examination in Dhanbad, bihar District, which is equivalent to s. S. L. C. Examination in Karnataka and therefore he is entitled for eligibility certificate. Unfortunately, according to the petitioner, the approach of the respondent in refusing the certificate prayed for is wrong, which cannot be sustained in law. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, the statement of objections has been presented on 16-2-1987. Unfortunately, according to the petitioner, the approach of the respondent in refusing the certificate prayed for is wrong, which cannot be sustained in law. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, the statement of objections has been presented on 16-2-1987. On perusal of paras 2 and 3 of the statement of objections, it is made clear that the petitioner to become eligible for admission to P. U. C. in karnataka, has to score a minimum marks of 35% out of 100 marks in the All India Secondary school Examination. But he has scored only 33% out of 100 under Code No. 41 i. e. , in Mathematics. The respondent, having verified from the central Board of Secondary Education, New delhi, regarding equality of the examination and also the passing of the examination by the petitioner, has come to know that the petitioner has failed in mathematics not having secured the required marks. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the Government Order dated 22-4-1981 it was made clear that minimum marks prescribed by the Board of the respondent to get eligibililty for admission to P. U. C. is 35%. Since the petitioner has failed in Mathematics, respondent is justified in issuing the endorsement Annexure-C intimating the petitioner that he was not eligible for obtaining the eligibility certificate so as to enable him to secure a seat in P. U. C. That being so, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The action taken by the respondent in refusing the eligibility certificate is justified. In the +result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .