Judgment :- Sreedharan, Ag. C. J. Petitioner in O.P. 18682/1995 is the appellant. She claims to be a handicapped person. She applied for taking the K.G.T.E. Technical Examination held in July 1994. She did not possess the minimum qualification required for the same. But, without noticing this defect, she was allowed to take the examination. She came out successful. Certificate showing that she successfully completed the examination was also issued. Later, it was realised that appellant-petitioner was not qualified to take the examination and consequently the issue of certificate was illegal. She was directed to surrender the certificate. That action initiated by the respondents was under challenge in the Original Petition. Learned Single Judge dismissed the same by judgment dt.15.1.1996. Hence, this appeal. 2. The fact that a candidate should possess S. S. L. C. for taking the K. G. T. E. Technical Examination is not in dispute. So, also the fact that petitioner did not possess that qualification and that she had only passed Vllth Standard examination is beyond controversy. In such a state of affairs, petitioner was not entitled to apply for the K.G.T.E. Technical Examination. In spite of this disqualification, petitioner applied for the examination. The authorities while scrutinizing the applications did not notice the lack of qualification of the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner took the examination and came out successful in it. At that stage also, the authorities did not notice the absence of the basic qualification of the petitioner and consequently, certificate was issued. When the mistake was noticed; steps have been taken for getting that certificate issued to the petitioner cancelled. 3. Petitioner being a person not qualified to take the examination should not have been allowed to sit for the same. The mere fact that she was allowed to take examination and came out successful is no reason to hold that she is entitled to have the certificate showing the pass in the K. G. T. E. Examination. When the mistake was realised by the respondents, they sought to cancel the same and for the said purpose, directed the petitioner to surrender the certificate already issued to her. We do not fi nd any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. When the mistake was realised by the respondents, they sought to cancel the same and for the said purpose, directed the petitioner to surrender the certificate already issued to her. We do not fi nd any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. Unnikrishnan, 1994 (1) KLT 651, reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. If the prayer of the petitioner in the Original Petition is allowed, it will amount to granting largess by this Court without any regard for law and justice. In the above circumstance, we do not find any substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.