ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the letter of the 2nd respondent made in Ref.No.211/S2/2000, dated 24.8.2000 and the letter of the first respondent made in Ref.No.211/S2/2000, dated 16.10.2000 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue and pursue her B.Tech (Production Technology) Course. 2. The petitioner applied for admission to B.Tech (lateral entry) courses offered by the 2nd respondent during the month of March, 2000. The petitioner was eligible to apply for the said course. On the basis of the particulars furnished, the petitioner was selected and she also paid the necessary fee on 23.6.2000. However, the provisional admission of the petitioner to B.Tech (lateral entry) course was cancelled by the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.8.2000 and the first respondent dated 16.10.2000 on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain the qualifying marks in B.Sc. examination. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that before the impugned orders were passed, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain and in the event of any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, she could have explained and satisfied the respondents that she is eligible for admission to B.Tech. course. The petitioner furnished all the particulars in regard to her marks at the time of submitting application and only on the basis of those particulars the petitioner was selected and was allowed to pay the fee. Therefore, it is not now open to the respondents to cancel the provisional selection of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained the qualifying marks. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that for admission of B.Tech course, a candidate should have obtained a minimum of 70% of marks in aggregate in qualifying B.Sc. examinations. Since the petitioner had secured only an aggregate of 65.47% marks in B.Sc. qualifying examinations she is not eligible for admission through lateral entry for B.Tech (Production Technology) Course. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not qualified and is ineligible to be admitted to the course. examinations. Since the petitioner had secured only an aggregate of 65.47% marks in B.Sc. qualifying examinations she is not eligible for admission through lateral entry for B.Tech (Production Technology) Course. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not qualified and is ineligible to be admitted to the course. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued prior to the impugned orders are passed, the learned counsel submitted that no such show cause notice is contemplated before provisional selection is sought to be cancelled on the ground of want of qualification. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply would contend that in the prospectus there is no specific method indicated for arriving at the aggregate of marks. When such being the case and when there are two methods possible to arrive at the aggregate of marks, the petitioner has adopted one mode of procedure to arrive at the aggregate of marks and the respondents have adopted another method in arriving at the aggregate marks. If the method adopted by the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petitioner is qualified as the aggregate mark is 70% and therefore she would be eligible. In such event the methodology to arrive at the aggregate of marks which would be beneficial to the candidates should be adopted. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is fully qualified. 6. I have given my due consideration to the respective submissions. In such event the methodology to arrive at the aggregate of marks which would be beneficial to the candidates should be adopted. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is fully qualified. 6. I have given my due consideration to the respective submissions. In the affidavit, the petitioner has given the details of the marks and the methods adopted by the petitioner to arrive at the percentage which could be conveniently extracted as follows: Marks Obtained in First and Second Years: S.No. Name of Subject Marks Percentage 1 Practical 58/60 97% 2 Mathematics 40/100 40% 3 Thermal Physics Acoustics 51/100 51% 4 Practical II 57/60 95% 5 Mechanics Properties matter Mathematical Methods 67/100 67% 6 Chemistry Practical 46/50 92% 7 Chemistry 60/100 60% 502/700 Average 72% Marks Obtained in Third Year: S.No. Name of Subject Marks Percentage 1 Practical III 52/80 65% 2 Optics and Spectroscopy 73/100 73% 3 Electricity and Magnetism 50/100 50% 4 Atomic Physics and Electronics 53/100 53% 5 Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Physics 62/100 62% 6 Applied Electronics Practical 38/40 95% 7 Applied Electronics 46/60 77% 475/700 Average 67.8% Further, the aggregate of marks for the first, second and third years is 69.78% (72% + 67.8%). According to the petitioner, the same has been rounded off to 70%. 7. The following are the norms prescribed for eligibility: "Eligibility: A. Qualifying Examination: Candidates for admission to the 3rd semester of the 8 semester B.Tech Degree Programme should have passed the examination of a B.Sc. Degree Course of 10+2+3 or 11+1+3 pattern of a recognised University in any one of the following discipline having maths and physics as subjects of study: Maths/Physics/Chemistry/Applied Science/Electronics/Instrumentation/Computer Science or Any other examination of any University or authority accepted by the syndicate of the Anna University as equivalent to the above examination. B. Minimum Marks: Candidate should have obtained a minimum of 70% of marks in aggregate of all parts offered under part/Group III in the qualifying B.Sc. examinations which are considered for classifications of results." 8. On a perusal of the said norms prescribed in the prospectus, it would be clear that a candidate in order to seek admission to B.Tech. Course (lateral entry) should have obtained a minimum of 70% of marks in aggregate. examinations which are considered for classifications of results." 8. On a perusal of the said norms prescribed in the prospectus, it would be clear that a candidate in order to seek admission to B.Tech. Course (lateral entry) should have obtained a minimum of 70% of marks in aggregate. By the said norms, it would mean that the marks obtained by the petitioner in all subjects shall be added together and thereafter only the aggregate of marks should be arrived. The method adopted by the petitioner is that arriving at the percentage of marks for each subject and adding of the percentage of marks put together and then arrive at aggregate of marks. In my considered view, it may not be a proper method to be adopted in arriving at the aggregate of marks. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any methodology prescribed in the prospectus for arriving the aggregate of marks, the methodology beneficial to the petitioner (candidate) should be adopted cannot be accepted. The very nature of the phrase used in the prospectus namely candidates should have obtained a minimum of 70% marks in aggregate would indicate that the marks in respect of all subjects should be added and thereafter only the aggregate of the marks should be arrived at. In the event of such methodology is adopted, the petitioner would secure only 65.47% which is far below 70% of the minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the impugned orders and permit the petitioner to continue the course on the basis of the selection made. It is to be further noted that all admissions are provisional and are liable to be reconsidered and if necessary are liable to be cancelled after scrutiny of the certificates and with reference to the educational qualification, age etc. Authorities competent to select the candidates are also empowered to cancel the selection, provided, on sufficient grounds. The provisional selections are liable to be cancelled in the event the authorities satisfy themselves as to the ineligibility of the candidates for being admitted to the course. 9. In view of my above findings, I do not find any error in the impugned orders in cancelling the provisional admission. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The provisional selections are liable to be cancelled in the event the authorities satisfy themselves as to the ineligibility of the candidates for being admitted to the course. 9. In view of my above findings, I do not find any error in the impugned orders in cancelling the provisional admission. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos.28707 and 26348 of 2000 are also dismissed.