Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the second respondent to select the petitioner to first year M.B.B.S. Course in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu Under Clause 3.5 (ii) of the prospectus published for the Academic Year 1997- 98. 2. Petitioner studied in St. Joseph Convent, Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil. She wrote the Higher Secondary Examination in March 1997 as a Private Candidate. She obtained good marks. She applied for admission to Medical Course under Special Category, i.e., seats reserved for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil Language and made significant contribution to Tamil Society, Culture and Literature. Along with her application, petitioner produced number of certificates showing that her grandfather, late Nagamani was an exponent of martial arts (Silambattam) According to the petitioner, the said art had been inherited by her grandfather from his ancestors. It is said that ‘Silambattam’ is a hallmark of valour of Tamilians for which they were known throughout Tamil history. With the onslaught of Western civilization, the Tamil Culture including the martial art was on the brink of decline. In those times, petitioners grandfather preserved the art of ‘Silambattam’ and thereby contributed to the protection and development of Tamil Culture. Petitioner produced two Certificates dated 7.6.1997 given by local M.L.A., two Certificates given by one Mr. K. Raja, dated 9.6.1997, Member of the Advisory Committee (Folk Art), one Certificate from Dr. S. Padmanabhan, Writer and Journalist, General Secretary, Kanyakumari Historical and Cultural Research Centre, dated 20.6.1997. and one Certificate from local M.P., dated 21.6.1997, in proof of her grandfathers contribution to the martial art of ‘Silambattam’, and also for consideration of her application under clause 3.5 (ii) of the prospectus. Petitioner obtained 65.42% marks in Entrance Examination. In all, her marks both in the subject and Entrance Examination come to 254.42. Petitioner expected that she would be selected for admission to First Year M.B.B.S. 1997-98. But she was not selected. It is said that even a student who has secured 237.50 marks has been selected, and given admission. This, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and discriminatory, and, therefore, she seeks intervention of this Court. 3. Petitioner expected that she would be selected for admission to First Year M.B.B.S. 1997-98. But she was not selected. It is said that even a student who has secured 237.50 marks has been selected, and given admission. This, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and discriminatory, and, therefore, she seeks intervention of this Court. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was not qualified for being selected, and therefore, her application was rejected. 4. The only question that requires consideration is, whether the rejection of the petitioners application was proper or not. 5. Clause 3.5 (ii) of the Prospectus reads thus:— “Seats reserved for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil Language and made significant contribution made to Tamil Society, Culture and Literature. -------------- No. of seats reserved in MBBS - 6 -------------- A Committee of Tamil Scholars constituted by the Government will examine the claims and all published documents of the parents whose children have applied for admission under this special category and offer their recommendations regarding their eligibility for consideration under this special category. All publications in original should be submitted separately in person to the Secretary, Selection Committee on or before the last date prescribed for submission of application. Failure to comply with this instruction is liable for disqualification. The candidate should submit a certificate from an Officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar of the respective area or a Member of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu or a Member of Parliament of Tamil Nadu, in support of their claim for admission on the above-mentioned grounds along with the application for consideration of their application under this category”. 6. Petitioners case is that, her grandfather had preserved the art of ‘Silambattam’ and thereby contributed to the protection and development of Tamil Culture. Her application was rejected on the ground that as per the Prospectus, the contribution must be by parents, and not by grandfather. This is disputed by petitioner on the ground that the definition for ‘parent’ includes grandparents also. Learned counsel for petitioner wanted this Court to take note of the fact that in Websters Dictionary, the meaning for ‘parent’ is given as (I) a father or a mother, (2) an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor. (4) a protector or guardian. This is disputed by petitioner on the ground that the definition for ‘parent’ includes grandparents also. Learned counsel for petitioner wanted this Court to take note of the fact that in Websters Dictionary, the meaning for ‘parent’ is given as (I) a father or a mother, (2) an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor. (4) a protector or guardian. The meaning for ‘parentage’ is given as derivation or descent from parents or ancestors. Learned counsel submitted that in view of this definition given in Websters Dictionary, ‘parent’ includes ‘grandfather’ also. Similar is the meaning given in ‘The Oxford Study Dictionary, for the word ‘parent’. There also, the meaning given is (1) one who has procreated offspring, a father or mother. (2) an ancestor. (3) a person who has adopted a child. According to learned counsel, as said in ‘P. Ramanatha Iyers - The Law Lexicon’ - 2nd Edition (1997), ‘Parent’ is generally understood to mean father or mother, but it may also mean any lineal ancestor. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the Prospectus, importance is given to parent who has contributed to the Development of Tamil Culture, and, therefore, even if he happens to be the grandfather of the applicant, admission has to be given to him. 7. I do not think the interpretation given by learned counsel for petitioner can be accepted. The expression that is used is ‘Children whose parents worked for the enrichment’. Naturally, it could be only the natural parents and not grandparents. Apart from this, the prospectus itself gives a contrary intention. When we consider the reservation made for children of freedom-fighters we find that admission is reserved for grand-children of freedom-fighters. This itself shows that the reservation under Special Category to which petitioner applied, applies only to natural parents, i.e., mother or father, and not grandparents. 8. Even in ‘The Law Lexicon’ relied on by learned counsel for petitioner, the ordinary meaning for ‘parent’ is given as ‘a person who has begotten or borne a child; father or mother’. It is further said that ‘the word parent’ or ‘parents’ may be held to mean one of both parents. ‘Parent’ is generally understood to mean father or mother, but it may also mean any lineal ancestor. It generally applied to the father. The Law Lexicon further says that ‘In the legal or ordinary acceptation of the term, ‘parent’ does not include a step-father or step-mother. ‘Parent’ is generally understood to mean father or mother, but it may also mean any lineal ancestor. It generally applied to the father. The Law Lexicon further says that ‘In the legal or ordinary acceptation of the term, ‘parent’ does not include a step-father or step-mother. 9. In Whartons Law Lexicon - Fourteenth Edition (First Indian Reprint 1993), after giving the meaning for a Latin Maxim, it is said that ‘parent’ is a general name for every kind of relationship. It further says that ‘parent’ includes ‘guardian and every person who is liable to maintain or has the actual custody of the child or young person’. 10. On going by the Prospectus, I feel that the only meaning that can be given for ‘parent’ used in the present context is, ‘natural parents’ of the candidate who seeks admission. Though the argument is that importance has been given to ‘parents’ in the prospectus that will not mean that it includes ‘grandparents’ also. Admission is sought by children whose parents have worked for enrichment of Tamil Language. If the argument of petitioner is accepted, the relationship need not be limited or restricted to grandparents. It can extend to any predecessor of the applicant. But this is not meant in the prospectus. Similar view has been taken by Kanakaraj, J. in a batch of Writ Petitions, viz., W.P. No. 11735, etc., of 1996 Batch (Gayathri Malathi, Nand others v. State of Tamil and others) order dated 5.11.1996), and the same has been reported in 1997 (1) C.T.C. 616 = 1997 Writ L.R. 261 = 1997-2-L.W. 5 S.N. Para 20 of the order reads thus:— “So far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 12252 of 1996 is concerned, the petitioner is the grandson of one Dr. Ulundurpet Shanmugham who is a well-known Tamil Scholar. His case was not considered because the prospectus only says that seats are reserved for the children of parenis who had contributed to the Tamil Development. The word Children does not/include the words ‘grandchildren’. In fact, on the similar arguments, I had held that the Court cannot expand the reservation and give relief to the grandchildren of parents who have contributed for Tamil Development. That decision was rendered in W.P. 16606 of 1994, dated 30.7.1996, relating to the heirs of here, ditary Indian Medicines Practitioners. The word Children does not/include the words ‘grandchildren’. In fact, on the similar arguments, I had held that the Court cannot expand the reservation and give relief to the grandchildren of parents who have contributed for Tamil Development. That decision was rendered in W.P. 16606 of 1994, dated 30.7.1996, relating to the heirs of here, ditary Indian Medicines Practitioners. The argument was that the grandson of an Indian Medicines Practitioner is also eligible for consideration under the Special Category. I had rejected the said argument. Adopting the ratio of the said judgment, this Writ Petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed”.