Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for a mandamus directing the first respondent to grant admission to the petitioner in the B.Ed. Course, to commence in January 2008 under enrollment No.080565430. 2. The Case of the petitioner in nutshell is as fallows:- (a) The petitioner has passed B.Sc. (Physics), M.Ph.Ed. (Master of physical Education) and M.Phil. In the year 1990, he was appointed as Physical Director in the Government Higher Secondary School, Anamalai, Coimbatore District. Subsequently, he was transferred to District Institute of Education and Training and was posted to the District Institute of Education and Training, Vanaramut, Tuticorin District. In the year 1999, he was transferred and posted to the District Institution of Education and Training, Tirumurthi Nagar, Coimbatore District and now he is working in the said Training School. (b) The first respondent, by prospectus had invited applications for B.Ed. Course to commence in January, 2008. The Petitioner submitted an application together with all required particulars. In the counseling the petitioner’s enrolment was shown as 080565430 and his rank was shown as 1362 in the general category. The First respondent also published results of all the candidates in the internet and the petitioner downloaded the results so far as the petitioner is concerned from the internet and as against his name, it was shown as General Category and his status was shown as qualified. (c) At the counseling, the second respondent verified the certificates and returned the demand draft after holding back the original call letter and certain annexures thereto by stating that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to B.Ed. Open University course of the first respondent herein. On further enquiry, it was stated that teaching experience of two years was required whereas the petitioner was Lecturer in Physical Education in DTERT and the same was not sufficient for admission to the course. No written order was issued. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 3. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent, wherein it has been pointed out that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification for admission of IGNOU and hence, he could not be accommodated. No written order was issued. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 3. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent, wherein it has been pointed out that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification for admission of IGNOU and hence, he could not be accommodated. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner, being a Lecturer in Physical Education, cannot claim to teach any of the subjects which he has to opt the electives and hence his case has not been considered. Further, it has been averred that the classes have to commence on in the first week of January 2008 and the petitioner cannot be accommodated. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have made their submissions basing on the pleadings referred to above. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he has, after seeing the prospectus inviting applications for B.Ed. Course, applied for the same and that he was hopeful that he would be selected. However, it has been informed orally that he is not eligible for admission on the ground that he does not have the teaching experience of two years as required, whereas he was a Lecturer in Physical Education in DTERT and the same is not sufficient for admission to the said course. When the petitioner does not possess such requirement, he cannot claim as a matter of right that he should have been selected for admission to B.Ed. Course under Open University system pursuant to the written examination held in the year 2007. 6. In the counter affidavit of the second respondent, it has been clearly spelt out that the eligibility for admission to IGNOU B.Ed. programme is a Bachelor Degree or a Higher Degree from any recongnised University and two years full time teaching experience on temporary / permanent basis, etc. and mere qualifying in the Entrance Test would not amount to acceptance of eligibility for admission to B.Ed. Course. Thus, para 4 of the counter affidavit deals with extensively about the eligibility for admission to the B.Ed. Course. and mere qualifying in the Entrance Test would not amount to acceptance of eligibility for admission to B.Ed. Course. Thus, para 4 of the counter affidavit deals with extensively about the eligibility for admission to the B.Ed. Course. Further, it has been averred in the counter affidavit that teachers who join IGNOU have to opt two electives from the following courses viz., .(i) ES-341 – Teaching of Science .(ii) ES-342 – Teaching of Mathematics (iii) ES-343 – Teaching of Social Studies .(iv) ES-344 – Teaching of English .(v) ES-345 – Teaching of Hindi .(vi) BESE-046 – Teaching of Tamil The petitioner, being a Lecturer in Physical Education, cannot claim to teach any of the above subjects and hence, he cannot opt the electives stated above. Thus, when the petitioner is not eligible to be selected for B.Ed. Course, he cannot sustain the writ petition for mandamus as though he is fully eligible and that the respondents have failed to consider his case. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief that has been sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected petition is closed.