Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner, an applicant for admission to T.T. C. course for the years 1998-2000 pursuant to Ext. P2 notification, has approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 and seeking a declaration that she is entitled to get admission to the said course on the basis of Ext. P3, under SSLC Ex-servicemen quota. When applications were invited as per Ext. P2 notification, the petitioner also made an application. As per Ext. P2 the applicant should have the qualification of pass in Pre-degree or Higher Secondary examination. It is also provided that 25% of the seats would be reserved for S.S.L.C. holders with 45% mark for Science, Mathematics, English and first language or 50% in aggregate and the remaining 75 % seats would be for Pre-degree holders or Higher Secondary certificate holders. The petitioner had passed S.S.L.C. examination with sufficient marks as mentioned above. After S.S.L.C. she attended pre-degree classes and has passed pre-degree examination as well. But she did not get 50% marks for pre-degree examination. Ext. P2 notification specifically provided that pre-degree candidates should have secured atleast 50% mark. The petitioner showed in her application that she had passed S.S.L.C. with necessary minimum mark. Accordingly, she was issued with Ext. P3 memo of selection that she had been selected under S.S.L.C. Ex-servicemen quota. The petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of dependent of Ex-servicemen. When she appeared for admission on the basis of Ext. P3, she was denied admission and Ext. P5 communication was given to her stating that on verification of her certificate it came to the notice of the Headmistress that she was not eligible for admission to TTC course under S.S.L.C. quota, as she had passed pre-degree examination. Ext. P5 also refers to Ext. P4 communication dated 27.5.98 wherein the Director of Public Instruction instructed the Deputy Director that; "While making selection candidates with P.D.C. or equivalent higher qualifications should not be admitted to the quota earmarked for S.S.L.C. holders." The petitioner submits that it is based on this instruction in Ext. P4 dated 27.5.98 that she is denied admission. According to her though she had passed pre-degree examination without 50% marks, she had also passed the S.S.L.C examination with the necessary minimum marks provided for the 25% of the seats reserved in Ext. P2. She shall be considered for the quota set apart for S.S.L.C. holders in terms of Ext. P4 dated 27.5.98 that she is denied admission. According to her though she had passed pre-degree examination without 50% marks, she had also passed the S.S.L.C examination with the necessary minimum marks provided for the 25% of the seats reserved in Ext. P2. She shall be considered for the quota set apart for S.S.L.C. holders in terms of Ext. P2 notification dated 29.1.98. Ext. P4 clarification is later than Ext. P2 notification. Therefore, Ext. P4 shall not govern the selection pursuant to Ext. P2 notification. It is further contended by the petitioner that when 25% of the seats are earmarked for S.S.L.C holders with specified mark limit, the petitioner who has passed S.S.L.C. examination with distinction shall be considered against the quota for the S.S.L.C. holders, even if Ext. P4 is applied because he is a S.S.L.C holder as well. The petitioner with S.S.L.C. is therefore, entitled for a seat under S.S.L.C quota with the benefit of dependent: of Ex-service men as well. 2. The claim of the petitioner is contested by the Government Pleader submitting that the minimum qualification for admission is pass in pre-degree examination with aggregate minimum of 50% marks. It is so provided for by amending R.10 of Chapter XXV KER as per notification issued in GO (P) No. 471/97 D. Edn., dated 29.11.98. The rule also provided that "during the academic year 1998-99 for 25% of the seats minimum qualification will be retained as S.S.L.C. with an aggregate 50% marks". Therefore, S.S.L.C. holders and pre-degree holders have to be separately considered for the quota earmarked for them. Every pre-degree holders or higher secondary holder will always be a matriculate. Therefore, it cannot be taken that pre-degree holders can be considered against the quota set apart for S.S.L.C holders. In other words Government Pleader submits that against the 25% of the seats reserved for S.S.L.C holders those who had acquired higher qualification than S.S.L.C cannot be considered at all. Therefore, it cannot be taken that pre-degree holders can be considered against the quota set apart for S.S.L.C holders. In other words Government Pleader submits that against the 25% of the seats reserved for S.S.L.C holders those who had acquired higher qualification than S.S.L.C cannot be considered at all. R.10 of Chapter XXV KER before the amendment provided that; "The minimum qualification for selection for training shall be a pass in the S.S.L.C. Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala with a minimum of 45 per cent marks each in English, Science, Malayalam, Mathematics and an aggregate minimum of 48% marks...." It was also provided in the same rule that; "Half the number of seats will be filled up by S.S.L.C. holders and the rest by the holders of pre-degree or its equivalent." Thus as per the old rule both S.S.L.C holders and pre-degree holders were eligible for admission to the course and separate quota of 50% each had been set apart for them. The case of candidates similarly placed as the petitioner was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 620/92. The issue considered in the said case is as discernible from para 3 of the judgment as follows; "According to the petitioners who have filed the Original Petitions they are competing on to basis of the marks they nave obtained in the S.S.L.C. examinations, though they have passed Pre-degree examination they are entitled to get admission in preference to many of the S.S.L.C. holders". It was also contended that "if this Court holds that Pre-degree holders cannot compete for the seats allotted or reserved for S.S.L.C. holders on the basis of the marks of the persons who passed Pre-degree examination, it will be very harsh and will be against the intention of the rule making authority". Considering the issue this Court held as follows; "From the rule it is clear that S.S.L.C. holders and pre degree holders are treated separately. The purpose of treating them separately is to see that S.S.L.C. holders must get halt the total seats or half the seats available for admission. Considering the issue this Court held as follows; "From the rule it is clear that S.S.L.C. holders and pre degree holders are treated separately. The purpose of treating them separately is to see that S.S.L.C. holders must get halt the total seats or half the seats available for admission. When once rule makes it clear that half the number of seats will be tilled up by S .S.L.C. holders and the rest by the holders of pre-degree or its equivalent and that, the order of merit for S .S.L.C. holders have to be judged on the basis of the marks for the S S L.C. and for pre degree holders on the basis of the marks for pre-degree examination. It is difficult for us to say the real intention of the rule is to allow Pre-degree holders also to compete in the quota reserved for S S L.C. holders if the pre degree holders have obtained higher marks in S.S.L.C. It is difficult for us to give such a meaning and interpreted on to R.10 of Chapter XXV". Though the rule was amended as mentioned above, for the current year, that is 1998- 99, for 25% of the seats, minimum qualification is retained as S.S.L.C. Thus, even the amended rule so far as the year 1998-99 is concerned is in every respect similar as unamended R.10 as considered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment except to the extent that only 25% of the seats is reserved for S.S.L.C. holders as against 50% in the unamended rule. Except in the matter of such percentage there is no difference in the qualification so far as the amended rule is concerned. It is based on the amended rule that Ext. P2 notification was issued inviting application for admission to the course. Going by the rule and the Division Bench decision of this Court as mentioned above, it is clear that pre-degree holders cannot "compete the quota reserved for S.S.L.C. holders if the pre-degree holders have obtained higher marks in S.S.L.C". Therefore, on the basis of the statutory rules governing the issue itself the petitioner cannot contend that her case shall be considered against 25% quota for S.S.L.C. holders. 3. It is true that the petitioner was issued with an admission card as revealed by Ext. P3 against S.S.L.C. Ex-service men quota. Therefore, on the basis of the statutory rules governing the issue itself the petitioner cannot contend that her case shall be considered against 25% quota for S.S.L.C. holders. 3. It is true that the petitioner was issued with an admission card as revealed by Ext. P3 against S.S.L.C. Ex-service men quota. I specifically asked the counsel for the petitioner whether she had indicated in her application that she had passed pre-degree examination. The counsel, after taking instruction from the petitioner, submitted that she did not mention in line application about her pass in the pre-degree examination. It was in the above circumstances that Ext. P3 admission card was issued to the petitioner on the basis that she had not passed pre-degree examination. It was only when she appeared pursuant to Ext. P3 that it came out that the petitioner had passed pre-degree and therefore, she could not have been considered against S.S.L.C. quota. It is in the above circumstances that Ext. P5 had been issued stating that she was not eligible for admission for T.T.C. course under S.S.L.C. quota. True Ext. P5 relied on Ext. P4, which is later in time then Ext. P2 notification. It is also true that Ext. P4 gives direction to the selecting authority that candidates with higher qualification should not be admitted to the quota embarked for the S.S.L.C. holders. The petitioner has a contention that, that instruction contained in Ext. P4 issued later than Ext. P2 notification cannot be applied to the selection. I have already examined the effect of R.10, Even if Ext. P4 is not there, the effect of R.10 is that, as held by the Division Bench in the judgment above mentioned, the pre-degree holders cannot be considered against the quota, reserved for S.S.L.C. holders. Ext. P4 instruction in that regard was unnecessary in the light of the rules. Therefore, Ext. P4 does not make any difference at all. The petitioner, having admittedly passed pre-degree examination cannot compete against S.S.L.C. quota. She has to be considered against 75% of the seals for pre-degree holders, but she is not qualified for a seat in that quota as she does not possess the minimum necessary marks or sufficient marks to come within the selected candidates. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief sought for in the Original Petition. Original Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.