1. Objections have not been filed by respondents. The matter is taken up for consideration with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard and considered. 3. Petitioner, claiming to be eligible in all respects, applied for admission to various professional courses (MBBS/BDS/BAMS/ BUMS/ Physiotherapy/ Diploma/ Dental Hygiene/B.E. Etc). However, her application form came to be rejected due to age bar. Being aggrieved, she has approached this court for seeking redressal of her grievance. 4. The minimum age criteria for applying in the said JKCET (Common Entrance Test) is 17 years. Admittedly, petitioner is 18 days short of attaining the minimum prescribed age on the material date. Regulation Graduate Medical Education 1997, 4(1), lays down eligibility criteria for admission to the medical courses. It provides that no candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the medical curriculum of first MBBS course until he/she has completed the age of 17 years on or before 31st of December of the year of admission to the MBBS course. The information brochure of JKCET 2014 issued by J&K BOPEE incorporates the aforesaid provision in 4(1) that the candidate must be at least 17 years old on or before 31st of December, 2014 for being eligible to appear in JKCET 2014 for admission to MBBS and allied Medical courses. On her own showing petitioner will be short of 18 days in attaining age of 17 years on 31st of December 2014. Thus, she would be ineligible to compete for JKCET 2014 Medical Entrance Test. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner made a vain bid to convince this court that Right to Education being fundamental right, the regulations prescribing minimum age for seeking admission to professional courses are ultra vires the Constitution and cannot be permitted to stand in the way of aspiring candidates to compete for professional courses. 6. This argument, though sound in technique, is bereft of substance. Right to education has been held as being concomitant to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the directive principles of State Policy which are fundamental in governance of the Country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights. Same have to be read into the fundamental rights. Fundamental rights and directive principles of State Policy are supplementary to each other. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the directive principles of State Policy which are fundamental in governance of the Country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights. Same have to be read into the fundamental rights. Fundamental rights and directive principles of State Policy are supplementary to each other. The State is under mandate to create conditions conducive to enjoyment of fundamental rights by all. Denial of "Right to Education" would render the fundamental rights beyond the reach of illiterate masses. Unless a citizen is educated, he will not be able to enjoy fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with "Right to Education", thus, spoke in "Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and ors." Reported in (1992) 3 SCC 666 :- "Right to life" is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education." 7. However, the State can impose reasonable restrictions to regulate the "Right to Education" in professional courses which are essentially job oriented. Admittedly, petitioner does not seek to pursue the aforesaid courses for qualification improvement. The courses, in respect whereof CET 2014 is being conducted, are professional courses and candidates' aspiration to compete for such courses cannot be said to be merely aimed at gaining knowledge or achieving academic excellence. The professional courses in question are job-oriented courses aimed at churning out professionals to join the medical and technical work force in governmental, corporate and private sectors where the rules governing the recruitment of human resources for employment prescribe the age of recruitment. Therefore, prescribing minimum age for admission to such professional courses cannot be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and ultravires the Constitution. There being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.