Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed, praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare Clause 4 of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the prospectus issued by the first respondent for admission, in M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, as it is null and void and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner, is the mother and natural guardian of her minor daughter S.U. SSwedheni, who had passed the Higher Secondary examinations conducted in the month of March, 2009. She had obtained the following marks in the said examinations: Tamil 182/200 English 186/200 Physics 191/200 Chemistry 200/200 Biology 184/200 Mathematics 188/200 Total 1131/1200 5. Based on the marks she had obtained, she had applied for the M.B.B.S course, for the year 2009-2010, with Random No.7227688692 and A.R.No.2950. Her cut off mark in the select Science subject is 1875. She belongs to a Backward Class community. Since her name was not found in the Rank/Merit list she had approached the respondent with a written representation. There has been no reply from the respondent, till date. However, the petitioner had been orally informed that her application for M.B.B.S course could not be considered, as she had not completed the minimum age required for such admission, as per Clause 4 of the prospectus. 6. It has been further stated that there is no minimum age prescribed in any other professional course like Engineering, Law, etc.. While so, the restriction imposed for applying for the M.B.B.S. Course, is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that once the candidate has fulfilled the requirements and had obtained the qualifications necessary, there should not be any embargo for making such applications based on the age of the candidate. When there is no such prescription in respect of other professional courses, there is no reason for prescribing the minimum age required, for applying for medical courses. Therefore, Clause 4 of the prospectus, fixing the minimum age, is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. When there is no such prescription in respect of other professional courses, there is no reason for prescribing the minimum age required, for applying for medical courses. Therefore, Clause 4 of the prospectus, fixing the minimum age, is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had completed 16 years 11 months and 14 days, as on 312. 2009. She is 16 days short of the minimum age of 17 years prescribed in the prospectus, for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses. The petitioner fulfills all other conditions and she would have had a very good chance of being selected for the medical course. In fact, the petitioners daughter, Ms. SSwedehini, had been granted the necessary relaxation of age limit, while writing the 10th standard examinations. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted, based on the instructions received by her from the respondents, that the prescription in the prospectus, with regard to the minimum age required for applying for the M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, has been prescribed by the Medical Council of India. The respondents do not have the power or jurisdiction to relax the condition. As it is a policy decision of the Medical Council of India, to impose such a condition for admission to the medical courses, it cannot be altered for the sake of the petitioners daughter, who is sixteen days short of the required age limit. Further, the medical council of India is not a party to the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as being devoid of merits. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The minimum age limit prescribed in the prospectus issued by the first respondent, for admission to the M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, is based on the policy decision of the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India has not been made a party to the present writ petition. The minimum age limit prescribed in the prospectus issued by the first respondent, for admission to the M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, is based on the policy decision of the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India has not been made a party to the present writ petition. The age limit prescribed for admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses cannot be relaxed, merely for the reason that the candidate had been permitted to write the 10th standard examinations, by relaxing the age limit prescribed for writing the said examinations. 10. The petitioner has not shown as to how the condition prescribed in the prospectus, with regard to the minimum age limit required for applying for the medical courses, is arbitrary and unreasonable. Further, it cannot be said that, since such an age limit had not been prescribed for the other professional courses, the first respondent or the Medical Council of India, cannot prescribe such a condition in the prospectus issued in respect of the admissions for the medical courses. Further, the impugned clause in the prospectus, for admissions to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses, for the academic year 20092010, has not been shown to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As such, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.