Madras High Court
P. Suresh vs Union Of India And Others on 19 December, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1991MAD8, AIR 1991 MADRAS 8
ORDER
1. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.
2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the selection of candidates for the first year M.B.B.S. course in the second respondent-Institute for the year 1989-90 and to quash the same insofar as the selection relates to the third respondent with Registered No. 0174 and direct the second respondent to admit the petitioner with Register No. 0298 against the first vacancy, if any, occasioned under Scheduled Caste category.
3. The petitioner herein applied for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. course in Jawaharlal Institute of Post-graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry and he was placed second in the waiting list against quota reserved for Scheduled Caste, with Register No. 0298. The third respondent herein, with Register No. 0174 was placed first in the waiting list against quota reserved tor Scheduled Caste. It is alleged in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste, that the third respondent herein does not belong to Scheduled Caste and as such he is not entitled to be considered against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste. It is further stated in the affidavit that the third" respondent herein did not file his social status certificate along with his application form and as such as per condition No. 3(3) of the prospectus his application ought not to have been considered at all. It is further alleged that the third respondent's father, who is working in the second respondent-Institute had influenced the second respondent-lnstitute and made him to consider the third respondent's application. It is also stated that because of the third respondent's father's influence, the application of the third respondent herein was considered and he was allowed to write the competitive examination and was also selected and placed first in the waiting list. It is further alleged that the second respondent herein had violated the canditions contained in the prospectus and had given undue preference to the third respondent which is clearly illegal and improper. In the affidavit it is further alleged that the third respondent herein is a born Christian as his father and mother were Christians, that he is not entitled to be considered for admission against the quota reserved for the Scheduled Caste, that the third respondent adopting malpractices, managed to secure a certificate of social status dated 22-3-1980 from the Tahsildar, Pondicherry, that the Tahsildar, Pondicherry, without applying his mind, without any enquiry had issued a certificate of social status to the third respondent, that the said certificate was obtained after the last date of application and after the entrance examination and alter selection list was prepared, and that the said certificate was obtained on the basis of some certificate said to have been issued by a Mandal Revenue Officer, Peru-manthara. West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. It is also alleged in the affidavit, that the third respondent's father with a view to change his social status, had published an advertisement in the Pondicherry Government Gazette dated 8-9-1987 to the effect that he had converted his religious faith from Christianity to Hinduism, that it is not true and correct that the third respondent's father ever changed his religious faith and that the said Gazette publication was only a part of his scheme to count himself and his children against the Scheduled Caste reservations for education and employment. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the third respondent's mother continues to be a Christian and that the third respondent and his parents continue the way of life of Christians including attending to the Church. It is stated that the third respondent's father is an employee of the second respondent-Institute, so also the petitioner's father. It is further stated in the affidavit that the religion of the third respondent was given and recorded in the books of school as Christian from first to tenth standard and that he had also availed concessions therefor. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the third respondent is a born Christian, that he was baptised soon after his birth some 17 years ago, that he had not undergone any process of conversion and that therefore the third respondent, in law and by presumption continues to be a Christian notwithstanding the fact, even if it is true, that his father had converted himself from Christian to Hindu faith. It is further alleged that social status, such as religion flows from birth and continue to be the same until altered, in a manner admissible to law, that the petitioner's father on coming to know that the third respondent was placed first in the waiting list against the quota reserved for the Scheduled Caste, submitted a representation to the second respondent stating that the third respondent cannot be considered for the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste and that the second respondent had gone out of way to receive documents from the third respondent in support of his social status after the process of selection was over and that the selection of the third respondent is clearly illegal, and improper. With these allegations, the petitioner herein came up before this Court with the prayer as stated supra.
4. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 4-7-1989.
5. Mr. T. N. Rajagopalan, the learned Counsel appears for the third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, so also the respondents 1 and 2 have also filed a counter-affidavit. Mr. A. R. Nagarajan, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appears for the respondents 1 and 2.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent herein, who is the main contesting respondent in this writ petition, it is claimed that along with his application form for admission to the second respondent Institute he had enclosed the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to his father by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Penumantra, West Goda-vari District, Andhra Pradesh on 20-3-1989 to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, that the said certificate was issued to his father, pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer as per G.O.Ms. No. 185 S. B2 Department dated 4-12-1979. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that in the said certificate the Mandal Revenue Officer certified that the father of the third respondent belonged to Adi Andhra Christian as per school records, that his parents named him as Eliya, that he reconverted himself to Hinduism and practising the customs of Hinduism, that the conversion of Hinduism was accepted by the elders of the community, and that he belongs to Hindu Religion of Adi Andhra caste. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit, that along with the application form for admission to M.B.B.S. course in the second respondent Institute, he had submitted a letter stating that the caste certificate from the Government of Pondicherry is awaited, that the same will be submitted as soon as it is issued and that though he has not filed his social status certificate along with his application, he has submitted his father's social status certificate to show that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Adi Andhra. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that he subsequently produced the social status certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Pondicherry dated 23-6-1989. The allegation that the third respondent's father influenced the second respondent is denied in the counter-affidavit. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the second respondent had not violated the conditions contained in the prospectus and had not given any undue preference to him. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that since he satisfied the requirements, he was considered and was allowed to write the competitive examination and that he is a Hindu by birth as his parents have been following only Hindu religion and faith even before his birth. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that the third respondent is following only the religious way of life of Hindu from his childhood and that the statement of the petitioner that the third respondent is a Christian is not correct. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Tahsildar, Pondicherry issued the certificate only after due verification of the records and after conducting an enquiry. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the Transfer Certificate issued by the school, after completion of the 10th standard, clearly mentions the religion as Hindu and community as Adi Andhra Scheduled Caste. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that without impleading the third respondent's father as party in the proceedings, it cannot be looked into. It is also denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, that his parents continue the way of life of Christian including attending Church. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent that his parents are following only Hindu faith and religion and they are accepted as Hindus by their relatives, friends and neighbours. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent that he was admitted in the school only as a Hindu, that he has not availed any concessions as a Christian and that the Transfer Certificate issued by the School after his completion of tenth standard mentions his religion as Hindu and community as Adi Andhra Scheduled Caste. The allegation that the third respondent had been baptised is denied in the counter-affidavit. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the religion is a belief and practice of custom and culture of a particular religion and that the third respondent herein never practised the Christian religion nor followed the Christian faith. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the question of conversion to Hindu religion does not arise in this case.
7. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed a separate counter-affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable in law and on facts since the final selection for admission has not yet been completed and that the writ petition has to be dismissed as premature. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the prayer asked for by the petitioner cannot be complied with and the writ petition has to be dismissed on this ground also. The fact that the petitioner herein and the third respondent applied for the admission to M.B.B.S. course under the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category is admitted. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that on the basis of their performance in the entrance examination conducted by the respondent Institute, the third respondent and the petitioner are placed in the waiting list No. 1 and No. 2 respectively. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner herein had submitted a Scheduled Caste certificate issued by Tahsildar, Pondicherry Union Territory dated 7-4-1989 whereas the father of the third respondent had submitted the application form enclosing a Scheduled Caste certificate issued to the father of the third respondent by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Penumantra, West Goda-vari District, Andhra Pradesh dated 20-3-1989 and also submitting a letter stating that the caste certificate of the third respondent is awaited from the Government of Pondicherry and the same will be submitted as soon as it is issued and further requested to consider his son under the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category. It is further stated that since the father of the third respondent has submitted caste certificate testifying him to belong to Scheduled Caste Adhi Andhra and also agreed to submit the same as soon as it is issued by the Government, it cannot be said that the application of the third respondent is incomplete. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that subsequently, the third respondent had produced the Scheduled Caste certificate dated 23-6-1989. The counter-affidavit points out the instructions issued in Govt. of India (Department of Personnel and Administration Reforms) vide Appendices 14 and 15 of the Brochure on reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in services, 4th Edition. Based upon these instructions, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that to avoid hardship to the students in general and the third respondent in particular this case, whose application duly filled in was provisionally permitted . duly affixing "PROVISIONAL" seal on the hall ticket subject to the production of social status certificate, and that such candidates were allowed to write the entrance examination subject to production of required certificate at the time of interview to finalise the admission. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner's father as well as the father of the third respondent are employed at JIPMER, Pondicherry, that it is very unfair on the part of the petitioner to state that the respondent Institute was influenced by the father of the third respondent, and that no conditions have been violated since the father of the third respondent has produced his own caste certificate with an undertaking to produce the social status certificate of his son as soon as the same is issued by the Pondicherry Government. It is further stated that the third respondent's father has produced caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pondicherry dated 23-6-1989 stating that he belongs to Hindu-Adi Andhra, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste category. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit, that the representation made by the father of the petitioner has been referred to the Collector, Revenue Department, Pondicherry for conducting enquiry and inform the eligibility of the third respondent to be considered against the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category seats by 24-7-1989, as per the proceedings of the Institute dated 7-7-1989. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the third respondent, who claims to belong to Pondi-
cherry Scheduled Caste category is shown against the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category and in the result, it was also mentioned in the result as follows:--
"... Final selection for admission of candidates shall be subject to fulfilment of requirement as laid down in the prospectus and verification of testimonials in original..."
It is further claimed that it is made clear confirmed that final selection for admission will be made after verification and scrutiny of all original documents submitted by the candidates at the time of interview and if they found them, in order. The respondents made it clear in the counter-affidavit that if, in case, the third respondent could not substantiate the claim of belonging to Scheduled Caste, he will not be considered for the seats earmarked for Pondichcrry Scheduled Caste category. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that .the petitioner is confusing the whole issue by misinterpreting the provisional selection as final selection tor admission, that the final selection for admission is not completed and that the petitioner's request to admit him in the first vacancy, if occasined under Scheduled Category cannot be complied with since the petitioner herein comes under Pondi-cherry Scheduled Caste category only and not under Scheduled Caste category.
8. The petitioner herein has filed a reply affidavit stating that it is not correct to state that the final selection of candidates for admission in the first year M.B.B.S. course has not been made, since the list of selected candidates had been published in the newspapers and in the Notice Board. It is further stated that the publication of selected candidates for all practical purposes was final and therefore the contention of the second respondent that the selection was not final cannot be countenanced. It is stated in the reply-affidavit that there is a typographical error in the prayer of the writ petition to mention the word 'Pondicherry' before the word 'Scheduled Caste' in the prayer. The petitioner, herein had reiterated the stand that the third respondent's application was incomplete and defective in terms of the prospectus and ought not to have been considered. It is further stated that the instructions issued by the Government of India relate to selection of candidates for appointment to various posts in Government service, that they do not pertain to selection of candidates to Medical College etc. and that therefore the instructions referred by the respondents 1 and 2 in their counter-affidavit are not applicable to the present case. It is further alleged in the reply-affidavit that admittedly the third respondent herein obtained the social status certificate on 23-6-(989 and that the selection process was completed prior to 21-6-1989 and the result of the selection was published on 21 -6-1989 itself in the Notice Board. Pointing out the dates as above, the petitioner stated in the reply-affidavit that even before obtaining the social status certificate the selection process had been completed and the third respondent was selected against the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste reserved seat, and that this is a clear indication of confirment of undue preference to the third respondent herein by the second respondent Institute.
9. By order dated 13-11-1989, the third respondent's father and the Tahsildar, Pondicherry have been impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 respectively.
10. Mr. G. Masilamani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the third respondent does not belong to Scheduled Caste and that the selection of the third respondent to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the year 1989-90 is arbitrary and illegal. The learned Counsel contends that on the date when the third respondent herein was born his father was a Christian and when the father of the third respondent, the fourth respondent herein, became a convert to Hinduism, the third respondent is still a minor and as such it cannot be said that the third respondent also got converted into Hinduism when the fourth respondent got converted into Hinduism. The learned Counsel also contends that according to the prospectus, the community certificate should be sent along with the application form and that this has not been done in this case. The learned Counsel points out the certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh Authorities dated 20-3-1989 and states that the said certificate shows that the fourth respondent is an Adi-Dravida Christian and if it is so he cannot be considered to come under the Scheduled Caste category. He contends that only Hindu Adi-Andhra can be considered to come under the Scheduled Caste category and not the Adi-Andhra Christian community. It is also contended that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar fifth respondent herein is not based upon any proof.
11. Mr. T. N. Rajagopalan, the learned counsel for the third respondent contends that the third respondent's father's community certificate has been given in time along with the application form as the application made by the third respondent herein, regarding the social status certificate was pending with the Tahsildar, Pondicherry. He further contends that the petitioner herein has not established any collusion between the respondents 2 and 3 as alleged in the petition.
12. Mr. A. R. Nagarajan, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, counsel for respondents 1 and 2, contends that only subject to fulfilment of requirements as laid down in Prospectus and verification of testimonials, the final selection will be made, that the admission card is only a provisional and as such it is not a final selection to the first year M.B.B.S. course. The learned counsel argues that on this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel contends that the Authorities have not deviated from the Rules prescribed in the Prospectus and that they have relied upon the certificate issued to the third respondent's father. The learned counsel contends that there is no collusion with the third respondent as contended by the petitioner.
13. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the third respondent and also the learned counsel for other respondents. Para 3.3 of the Prospectus issued for the admission into M.B.B.S. course for the year 1989-90 by the respondent Institute, viz., Jawaharlal Institute of Post-graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry reads as follows:
"3.3. All columns in the application form should be filled in carefully and legibly in candidate's own handwriting and sent by registered post with acknowledgment due addressed to the Dean, J1PMER, Pondi-cherry-606006 in a cover superscribed "Application for admission to I M.B.B.S. Course, 1989-90" so as to reach him by 4.30 p.m. on or before 9th May, 1989.
Application received after the due date, due to postal delay in transit or on any other ground and applications which are incomplete in required particulars will not be considered."
Para 3.4 refers to the documents which should be submitted with the application form. Para3.4(5) refers to social status certificate which runs as follows:
"(5) Social Status Certificate : Certificate of Social Status if belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the form appended to the application form, from any one of the authorities empowered to issue the certificate -- a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar."
Para 3.4.1 reads as follows:
"3.4.1.Certificate submitted with application form will in no case be returned to the candidates. Candidates are therefore, advised not to send those original certificates which are not required."
Para 3.6 reads as follows:
".. .On receipt of duly filled in application, each application form will be assigned a Registration No. (which is also the Hall Ticket No. indicated in the Admit Card for the J1PMER Entrance Examination) and this will be intimated to the candidate in the acknowledgment card. This Registration Number should be quoted in all future correspondence invariably and the prospectus number should not be quoted. . ."
The admission cards are sent according to Para 4.2 of the Propectus which reads as follows:
"4.2. The Admit Cards will be sent only to those candidates who fulfil the admission requirements in respect of nationality/age/ educational qualification/ residence indicated in para 2.1., 2.2., 2.3., 2.4., 2.5 and 3.5.1. No candidates will be allowed to appear in the Entrance Examination unless he/she holds the Admit Card issued by this Institute."
The form of social status certificate is ap-pened to the application form. According to para 3.3. of the Prospectus, the last date for the receipt of the application form is 9-6-1989, and that the applications which are incomplete in required particulars will not be considered. Column No. 9 of the application form provides that the candidates belonging to Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category to produce social status certificate in the prescribed form. In this case, on facts, it is not denied that the last date for the receipt of the application form was 9-6-1989 and the date of entrance examination was 4-6-1989. It is not denied that the Social Status certificate of the third respondent has been produced only subsequent to the publication of the results, i.e. after 21-6-1989. It is seen that even before the production of the Social Status certificate, selection process has been completed and the third respondent herein was selected against the quota reserved for Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category. In my view, this cannot be done and is wholly irregular. I am of the view that the action of the authorities of the respondent Institute entertaining the application of the third respondent herein, is highly irregular and since the application of the third respondent had not been accompanied by Social Status certificate, as prescribed by the Rules in the present case, the said application ought to have been rejected. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules in a prospectus 'issued for admission into educational course in Rathnaswamy, Dr. A. v. Director of Medical Education, 1986 Writ LR 207, in which, speaking for the Bench, Nainar Sundaram, J. observed as follows (at p. 311):
"The principle has been uniform that violation of the norms of admission laid down and rules and regulations governing the same with impunity have been frowned upon and many times have been struck down. These rules and norms are there to be strictly and solemnly adhered to. They alone should be the guidelines for such admissions."
At p. 212 it is stated as follows:
"The very rules and norms have come to be laid down only to govern and to be adhered to and not to be ignored and breached."
If these principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the application of the third respondent had been entertained wrongly and he had been also called for the entrance examination irregularly. When the petitioner herein complains that the third respondent has not produced the social status certificate along-with the application form, according to the prospectus, it is not an answer to any that the third respondent's father's community certificate has been produced along with the application form and that concluded the issue. I am not able to find anywhere in the prospectus that a candidate can produce the social status certificate of his father, when it requires the production of the Social Status certificate of the applicant. In my view, mere letter written by the father of the third respondent, agreeing to produce the Social Status certificate later, will not cure the defect. If his explanation is to be accepted then a candidate giving an undertaking and entering the field at the first instance and if at later stage, he fails to produce the required certificate later, then the selection made will be useless. I do not think this sort of procedure should be entertained with regard to admissions in colleges, that too, in professional colleges. Admittedly, the Social Status certificate of the third respondent herein had not been produced before the Authorities of the respondent Institute, when the admission card was sent to the third respondent and he was allowed to write the entrance examination. This is a clear violation of Rules prescribed in the prospectus and if the Rules are violated, it comes under the dicta of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, cited supra. In Doddi Atchayyamma v.
Doddi Venkata Ramanna AIR 1983 SC 880 at 822, it has been observed as follows:
"We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various states to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted."
The argument of Mr. A. R. Nagarijan, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, relying up to the instructions of the Government of India, by the Appendices 14 and 15 of the Brochure an Reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in services, 4th Edition, is not correct. Those instructions are only with ireference to appointments and they are not applicable to a case of admissions to the educational institutions. Since the admission given to the third respondent is in violation of the Rules complained in the Prospectus, I em of the view that the writ petition will have to be allowed on this ground alone.
14. An argument had been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent does not belong to Scheduled Castes. The question will be whether it is open for this Court to go into the question of validity of the Social Status Certificate issued by the Tahsildar. On 23-6-1989, the community certificate has been issued by the authority/fifth respondent herein showing that the third respondent herein belongs to Hindu Adi Andhra. This has been issued on an application made by the third respondent's father dated 20-3-1989.
15. Mr. Masilamani, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the third respondent's father was a Christian and he was converted into Hinduism and he has produced a certificate issued by the Viswa Hindu Parishad dated 24-7-1987. That certificate shows that the third respondent's father has embraced Hindu Dharma after renouncing Christianity his previous religion on 24-7-1987. The certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Penumantra, Andhra Pradesh dated 20-3-1989 shows that the father of the third respondent herein, originally belonged to Adi-Andhra Christian, community as per the school records. It is further stated therein that since his parents named him as Eliya and that he re-convened himself to Hinduism the said community certificate showing him as belonging to Hindu-Adi-Andhra has been issued. The said certificate reads as under:
".....Certified that the matter has been enquired into as required in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 165, BW DC Department, dated 4-12-1979 that the enquiry reveals that Sri. Papala Eswarayya alias Eliya, s/o Paidiyya of Juttiga village of Penumanta Mandal originally belonged to Adi-Andhra Christian community as per the school records. Since his parents named him as Eliya and that he re-converted himself to Hinduism and that he has been practising the customs of Hinduism having been accepted by the elders of the community i.e., Adi-Andhra. As such he belongs to Hindu Religion of Adi-Andhra Caste which comes under Scheduled Caste. He originally resides in Juttiga village of Penumanta Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh."
This is the certificate which has been enclosed in the application form of the third respondent herein for admission to first year M.B.B.S. course in the respondent Institute. In fact, the respondent Institute has also written a letter to the Collector, Revenue Department, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry on 7-7-1989, requesting him to make a discrete enquiry with regard to the-social status of the third respondent herein and to inform very early whether the third respondent herein is eligible to be considered under Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category on the basis of the 'Community Certificate' issued by Tahsildar, Pondicherry dated 23-6-1989. The argument of Mr. Masilamani, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the father of the third respondent had converted himself into Hinduism from Christianity, it cannot be said that his son, the third respondent herein also belongs to Hindu-Adi-Andhra to come under the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category.
16. The file has been produced by the learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry. I have gone through the file, which culminated in the issue of Scheduled Caste certificate, on a perusal of the file, I find that the third respondent's father, originally named as Papala Eliyah as per school records and his caste was Adi-Andhra Christian, that he finished his school studies and got the job in JIPMER and that he has taken efforts to change his community. It seems on the-basis of the certificate issued by Viswa Hindu Parishad, Cuddalore, the third respondent's father has filed a petition before the Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry to declare that Rapaka Eliya and Rapaka Fswarayya are one and the same person. It seems according to this, the authorities of the JIPMER also effected necessary correction in the office records. Based upon the report of the Deputy Collector(Revenue) Pondicherry, the Tahsildar, Pondicherry has issued the social status certificate to the third respondent. A Division Bench of this Court is Sakthi Devi v. The Collector of Salem, Salem, 1984 Writ LR 535, has given general direction to all Courts and authorities which are to the following effect (at p. 341):
"I. A Caste/Comminity certificate issued by an empowered public authority under seal continues to be a valid document till it is cancelled by the said authority or by his superior authority.
2. Their contents are to be treated as correct and every public authority, undertakings, bodies, institutions, etc., which are bound by instructions relating to such certificates, are bound to get upon them, no less as they are not cancelled.
3. In no disciplinary proceedings, their genuineness or correctness of their contents can be gone into. It is open to the department or employer or organisation to ask the issuing authority or District Collector, as the case may be, to verify whether the certificate as issued could be still valid, on materials which have since come to their knowledge. They can appear in the verification enquiry and place the materials.
4. If the certificate is cancelled, then disciplinary proceedings can be initiated for having furnished false information.
5. Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificate by approaching the District Magistrate -- Collector of the District or such other constituted authority and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner.
6. In causing verification, the Collector is bound to follow the procedure laid down in letter dated 7th July, 1989 of Government of Tamil Nadu.
7. In view of what is stated in Chapter 10 of Brochure on reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in services, 4th Edition (1989) the instructions issued in the Central Government from time to time relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, pertaining to issue of caste certificates are binding upon public sector undertakings, statutory and semi-Government bodies and voluntary agencies receiving grant-in-aid from the Central Government, as provided therein."
If the above mentioned principles are applied, I do not think this court can go into the merits of the community certificate issued in favour of the third respondent herein as Hindu-Adi-Andhra. In my view, the validity of the community certificate of the third respondent herein cannot be gone into by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution. This dicta has been followed by S. A. Kader. J. in a case reported in Saravanan v. The Dean. Agricultural College and Research Institute, Madurai, 1988 Writ LR 267. In view of the categorical dicta of the Division Bench of this Court, I do not think this court can go into the contentions raised by Mr. Masila-mani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on facts to find out whether the third respondent belongs to Hindu Adi-Andhra or Adi-Andhra Christian. 1 do not think the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Syed Noor Fathima v. Selection Committee for Admission to I Year-M.B.B.S. Course, AIR 1984 NOC 276 (Kant), can be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, cited supra. Further, ail questions raised by Mr. Masila-mani, the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to a pure question of facts and it can be decided only by letting in evidence and it has to be decided elsewhere. This court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be made as a substitute for a civil court, and this court cannot go into the question of facts on the validity of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, 1 take the view that the community certificate issued to the third respondent herein by the Tahsildar, Pondicherry on 23-6-1989 cannot be questioned. But, as I have already stated, the writ petition will have to be allowed since the social status certificate has not been submitted along with the application form, the said application form itself ought not to have been entertained. This is a gross violation of the rules and norms prescribed in the Prospectus for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course for 1989-90 in Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry.
17. In the result, the selection of the third respondent, assuming it is provisional, has to be set aside and it is hereby set aside and the petitioner will be placed as No. 1 in the waiting list. The writ petition will stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
18. Petition allowed.