JUDGMENT Babumathew P. Joseph, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed with the prayers (1) for a direction to the first respondent, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram, to issue allotment memo to the petitioner enabling him to join the Government Law College, Ernakulam, for the five year LL.B course, (2) for a direction to the third respondent, the Principal, Government Law College, Ernakulam, to admit the petitioner to his College for the five year LL.B course and (3) for a direction to the second respondent, the Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala, to issue a pass certificate with the percentage of marks secured by the petitioner in the Pre-degree Examination. 2. The first respondent issued Ext.P3 notification dated 5.5.2008 inviting applications for entrance examination for admission to five year LL.B course in the Government Law Colleges in Kerala. The educational qualification prescribed was a pass, with 40% marks, in the Plus Two Examination conducted by the Higher Secondary Department of the Kerala State or equivalent examination recognised by the Universities in Kerala. The petitioner passed Pre-degree Examination conducted by the Kerala University with 41.89% marks i.e. 377 marks out of 900 marks. Exts.P1 and P2 are the copies of the certificates issued by the second respondent showing these facts. Pursuant to Ext.P3, the petitioner had applied for the five year LL.B course. He had secured rank No.360 in the entrance examination. Subsequently, the first respondent issued Ext.P4 notification dated 3.9.2008 requiring the rank holders to report for the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) for admission to five year LL.B course with the original documents to prove academic eligibility etc. Accordingly, the petitioner reported for CAP and submitted all the documents required as per the prospectus including Exts.P1 and P2. But, the officials who engaged in the allotment process as well as the first respondent refused to accept Exts.P1 and P2 certificates as proving the claim of the petitioner regarding his educational qualification. They insisted for a separate pass certificate with the percentage of marks issued by the University in order to prove his claim regarding educational qualification. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application to the second respondent for issuing a pass certificate with the marks and the percentage of marks secured by him in the Pre-degree Examination. He has also remitted Rs.100/-for that purpose and Ext.P7 is the receipt issued by the University for the same. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application to the second respondent for issuing a pass certificate with the marks and the percentage of marks secured by him in the Pre-degree Examination. He has also remitted Rs.100/-for that purpose and Ext.P7 is the receipt issued by the University for the same. The petitioner was informed from the University that the certificate applied for cannot be granted as there was no provision for the same. The first respondent published Ext.P5 list of candidates allotted to the Government Law College, Ernakulam, in which serial number of the petitioner is 62. Since the first respondent insisted for a pass certificate with the percentage of marks secured and the petitioner was not in a position to produce such a certificate, apprehending that he would be deprived of his right to get admission to the course, he has approached this Court with this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. The Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala has initially filed a statement and, subsequently, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The respondents 1 and 3 have not filed counter affidavits. 4. The educational qualification prescribed in Ext.P3 is a pass in the Plus Two examination conducted by the Higher Secondary Department of the Kerala State or equivalent examination recognised by the Universities in Kerala. The Pre-degree Examination conducted by the University of Kerala is an equivalent qualification. There was no dispute also regarding this fact. The petitioner passed Part-I English and Part-II Hindi in the examination held in April, 1993. The minimum marks required for a pass in English was 120 marks out of 300 and the minimum marks required for a pass in Hindi was 60 marks out of 150. The petitioner secured 120 for English and 72 for Hindi. His optional subjects in Part-III were Physics, Chemistry and Biology. He failed in the optional subjects in that examination. Ext.P1 is a copy of the certificate showing these details issued by the second respondent. The petitioner passed Part-III optional subjects in the examination held in April, 1994. The petitioner secured 120 for English and 72 for Hindi. His optional subjects in Part-III were Physics, Chemistry and Biology. He failed in the optional subjects in that examination. Ext.P1 is a copy of the certificate showing these details issued by the second respondent. The petitioner passed Part-III optional subjects in the examination held in April, 1994. The minimum marks required for a pass was 45 out of 150 in each of the three subjects and a minimum total of 180 out of 450 for the three subjects together. The petitioner secured 45 for physics and 70 each for Chemistry and Biology. Thus, he secured 185 marks out of 450 for these three subjects together. Ext.P2 is a copy of the certificate showing these details issued by the second respondent. Exts. P1 and P2 show that the petitioner passed the Pre-degree Examination conducted by the University of Kerala. These documents further show that the minimum marks prescribed for a pass in the examination was 40% of the maximum marks prescribed i.e., 360 marks out of 900 and the petitioner secured either 40% or more for different languages/subjects and a total of 377 marks out of 900. So, the percentage of marks secured by the petitioner is 41.89. Therefore, the Pre-degree Examination passed by the petitioner with 41.89% of marks satisfies the eligibility condition in respect of educational qualification prescribed in Ext.P3 notification issued by the first respondent. Since Exts.P1 and P2 cogently prove the fact that the petitioner possesses the required educational qualification for applying for admission to five year LL.B course, the insistence of the first respondent or his office for producing a pass certificate with the percentage of marks issued by the University is only unreasonable and arbitrary in nature. The petitioner is entitled to be considered as one who possesses the required educational qualification for admission based on Exts.P1 and P2 certificates. 5. The petitioner has specifically averred in the Writ Petition that, as directed in Ext.P4 notification, he had reported for Centralized Allotment Process and submitted all the documents required as per the prospectus including Exts.P1 and P2. This averment of the petitioner has not been disputed by the first respondent as he has not contested the matter by filing a counter affidavit. This averment of the petitioner has not been disputed by the first respondent as he has not contested the matter by filing a counter affidavit. Therefore, the first respondent has no case that the petitioner ought to have produced some other document, as one prescribed in the prospectus, for proving his academic eligibility. Ext.P4 notification prescribed only the original documents for proving academic eligibility. The petitioner has produced Exts.P1 and P2 certificates issued by the second respondent. These certificates cogently prove the facts that the petitioner has passed the Pre-degree Examination of the Kerala University and the marks secured by him in that Examination. The percentage of marks, namely 41.89%, secured by the petitioner is also easily discernible from these documents. Exts.P1 and P2 are in effect pass certificates-cum-mark lists. Therefore, by producing Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner proved that he was possessing the required educational qualification prescribed. This being the factual position, the insistence by the first respondent or his office that the petitioner should produce another pass certificate with the percentage of marks secured by the petitioner is only unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The stand taken by the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit is that the University is following a practice to issue certificates, as applied for in this case, only to those who had passed their Pre-degree Examination in the first attempt. Also stated that no candidate who had cleared his Pre-degree Examination in part by appearing more than once has been issued such a certificate. At the same time, the counter affidavit admits that there is no provision or rule which forbids the University from issuing a certificate as applied for by the petitioner. It is further stated that, as a special case, a certificate applied for by the petitioner can be issued. This counter affidavit was filed on 10.7.2012. It is stated in the statement dated 27.11.2008 filed by the Standing Counsel for the University that the application of the petitioner was under consideration and such a certificate can be issued to the petitioner as a special case. But, in spite of the fact that such a statement was made as early as on 27.11.2008, no such certificate has been issued by the second respondent to the petitioner even after elapsing more than 3= years. But, in spite of the fact that such a statement was made as early as on 27.11.2008, no such certificate has been issued by the second respondent to the petitioner even after elapsing more than 3= years. The second respondent ought to have issued such a certificate to the petitioner at the earliest. That does not mean that such a certificate is required for admitting the petitioner to five year LL.B course based on the rank secured by him in the entrance examination. 7. This Court, by an interim order dated 26.9.2008, directed the first respondent to issue an allotment memo to the petitioner enabling him to join the Five Year LL.B Course in the Government Law College on a provisional basis subject to further orders to be passed in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complying with that order allotment memo has been issued and the petitioner joined the five year LL.B course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam. Thereafter, he has been undergoing the course in that College. Therefore, no directions as prayed for in the Writ Petition need be issued to the respondents 1 and 3 in respect of admission of the petitioner to five year LL.B course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam. But, in the facts and circumstances, a direction to the respondents 1 and 3 and the concerned University to treat the admission so secured by the petitioner in the Government Law College, Ernakulam, as regular for all purposes is required. A direction to the second respondent to issue a certificate as applied for in Ext.P6 is also to be issued. 8. In the result, the following directions are issued: (1) The admission of the petitioner to five year LL.B course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam is to be treated as regular for all purposes by the respondents 1 and 3 as well as by the concerned University. (2) The second respondent is directed to issue a certificate showing the details as applied for in Ext.P6 to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is allowed as above.