Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner, who belongs to Christian Nadar community, which is a backward class community, had applied for B.Ed., course in the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, the second respondent herein. The petitioner had joined the course and she has been studying in RPA College of Education, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. However, the management of the said college had issued a communication to the petitioner stating that her admission was being cancelled, as the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University has rejected the admission of the petitioner on the ground that she was not eligible for being admitted in the said course. 3. It had also been stated that the minimum percentage of marks to be obtained for admission was 45% for backward class candidates. However, the petitioner had obtained only 42.9% of marks in the under graduate degree course. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that, as per guidelines for admission to the B.Ed. degree course, for the academic year 2009-2010, the Government of Tamil Nadu had prescribed the minimum qualification, in G.O.Ms.(ID) No.201, Higher Education (G1) Department, dated 26.6.2009. As per the said Government order, a candidate belonging to the backward class community should have obtained a minimum of 45% of marks in the under graduate degree course, for being qualified to be admitted to the B.Ed. degree course. As the petitioner had got only 42.9% of marks in the under graduate degree course, she was not eligible to be admitted in the said course. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University has issued the impugned order, dated 11.12.2009, rejecting the admission of the petitioner to the B.Ed. degree course. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had obtained only 42.9% of marks in the under graduate degree course. Whereas, being a graduate belonging to a backward class community, she should have obtained a minimum 45% of marks in the under graduate degree course, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms. (ID) No.201, Higher Education (G1) Department, dated 26.6.2009. Whereas, being a graduate belonging to a backward class community, she should have obtained a minimum 45% of marks in the under graduate degree course, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms. (ID) No.201, Higher Education (G1) Department, dated 26.6.2009. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As such, it is clear that the petitioner did not have the minimum of 45% of marks in the under graduate course, as prescribed by the said Government order, for being admitted in the B.Ed. degree course in the third respondent college. Therefore, it is clear that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 11.12.2009, is devoid of merits and hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.