Judgment : The petitioner joined the third respondent college which is a self-financing College of Education for the year 2007-2008. Without regard to the Government norms, the third respondent college admitted the writ petitioner for the B.Ed course. 2. In respect of admission to various professional courses, it is the Government, which prescribes minimum standards and the qualifications for getting admitted to various professional courses. In the notification for the admission of B.Ed course for the year 2007- 2008, the Government have advertised that there must be a minimum qualification for entering into B.Ed course and graduates should have got in their degrees the following minimum marks for getting admitted to B.Ed course Community Percentage of Marks Othey community 60% Backward community 45% Most Backward community 43% Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes 40% 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has only 38% in graduation and he is ineligible to get admitted in the B.Ed Course. Notwithstanding the said fact, the third respondent had collected money from the petitioner and admitted him in the- course. Now, on coming to know of the notification, the petitioner was sent away from the institution and he was also refunded with the amount paid by him. 4. However, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the very prescription of minimum marks for the B.Ed course for the year 2007-2008 and according to him, the notification” inasmuch as prescribing 40 marks for SC/ST candidates is unreasonable. Further, the petitioner asserts that in the previous year, no minimum mark was prescribed for admission of the said course. However, no material is produced before this Court in support of the same. 5. Admission toprofessional courses is always in consonance to the notification issued by the Government from year to year and each academic year is a separate unit and. therefore, relying upon the prescription of previous years has no relevance to the year in question. 6. In the present case, in view of the conscious decision of the Government that they cannot expect the same standard from candidates from all communities, the Government have made a reasonable classification prescribing different marks for different communal groups. Therefore, when candidates of other communities have to secure 60%, the Government taking note of the socio-economic backwardness of the other communities, have prescribed lesser marks and in case of SC/ST, only 40 marks has been prescribed. 7. Therefore, when candidates of other communities have to secure 60%, the Government taking note of the socio-economic backwardness of the other communities, have prescribed lesser marks and in case of SC/ST, only 40 marks has been prescribed. 7. Thepetitioner, only with a view to get admitted to the B.Ed course seeks to reduce or lower the standards prescribed therefor. 8. In the judgment relating to Udai Singh Dagar and Others v. Union of India and Others Udai Singh Dagar and Others v. Union of India and Others Udai Singh Dagar and Others v. Union of India and Others 2007 AIR SCW 4638, the following passage is found in paragraph 22: 22. “…. for maintaining better standard in profession, lay down qualification which need not satisfy the test of public importance particularly in view of the fact that the Parliament or the States by making suitable enactments can always lay down the qualifications for carrying on any profession.” 9. Further, in para 32, the following passage is found: 32. “Any profession which deals with the life of a human being or an animal may be regulated or controlled. Essential qualifications can be laid down for the purpose of entry in the State services. …” 10. Under these circumstances, the challenge made to the minimum qualification prescribed is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.