Kerala High Court
Dr.K.R.Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2012
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/1ST CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 5300 of 2012 (J)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
DR.K.R.RAJAN, S/O. RAMAN(LATE),
AGED 42 YEARS, DEPUTY D.M.O.,
D.M.O. OFFICE, KOTTAYAM,
RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL HOUSE,
PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL,
SRI.K.M.SWAMIDAS.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.VINCENT K.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 5300 of 2012 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR
ADMISSION TO MEDICAL POST GRADUATE DEGREE/DIPLOMA
COURSE 2012.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.2269/PGM/2012/TA4/CEE, DTD.6.2.2012.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 5300 of 2012
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 21st day of March, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner applied for admission to post graduate medical course in the quota reserved for service candidates. The petitioner claims belongs to a scheduled caste community by name "Hindu Parava". Although the petitioner claimed reservation as scheduled caste in Ext.P2 application for admission, the petitioner did not produce the community certificate along with the application in the prescribed form. by Ext.P3, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner would be considered only as a general candidate. On realising the omission, the petitioner obtained a community certificate in the prescribed form and submitted the same before the 3rd respondent for consideration along with Ext.P4 representation. The petitioner sought to annex the community certificate to Ext.P2. But the petitioner is not being considered in the reservation quota, is his grievance in this writ petition. The petitioner now seeks the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same;
ii. declare that Clause VI(c)(i)(v) of Ext.P1 prospectus to the extent it stipulates that the claim for reservation will not be granted to any candidate if the community certificate is not accompanied along with the application is illegal, irregular and arbitrary;
iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner as a Schedule Caste, Hindu Parava, candidate for the purpose of admission to post W.P(C) No. 5300 of 2012 -: 2 :- graduate medical course for the year 2012."
2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that it s a specific condition of the prospectus that community certificates should accompany the application and community certificates produced later would not be considered. He also relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Deepthy v. State of Kerala & others, ILR 2000(1) Kerala 845, in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that decision is in favour of the petitioner insofar as in that case the Division Bench has directed consideration of a certificate produced subsequent to the filing of the application. The petitioner submits that that was a case where a scheduled caste person was given the benefit of reservation on the basis of a certificate produced subsequent to the filing of the application. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. Clause VI(c)(i)(b) of Ext.P1 prospectus states thus:
"b. The applications for the reserved seats of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates which do not contain SC/ST Certificates (Community Certificate) from the Tahsildar in the prescribed form provided on the body of the application will not be considered on any account for claiming community reservation against the seats reserved for SC/ST candidates - vide G.O.(MS) 31/90/SC ST DD dated 25.05.1990. The community certificate should clearly specify that the candidate himself/herself (not the father or mother) belongs to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes. The Community Certificate obtained earlier for other purposes will not be accepted. The candidates who are reconverted to Hinduism from Christianity of Scheduled W.P(C) No. 5300 of 2012 -: 3 :- Caste origin should produce community certificate from the Tahsildar concerned along with a copy of Gazette Notification regarding re-conversion."
Paragraph 21 of the decision in Deepthy's case (supra) relied on by the petitioner reads thus:
"21. We notice that the applicant failed to produce inter-caste marriage certificate along with her application. Relying on various provisions in the prospectus, we have already noticed that the production of such a certificate is a mandatory requirement. However, in this case we are not inclined to reject the claim of the petitioner on the mere ground that such a certificate was not produced along with the application. Admittedly, the applicant's mother belongs to Scheduled Caste. Applicant produced along with her application a community certificate to show that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community. Petitioner was given an opportunity by the KIRTADS as well as the Screening Committee to establish her claim for reservation available to offsprings of inter-castes married couple. She produced the necessary documents before the KIRTADS and the Screening Committee to establish her claim. Both the Screening Committee and KIRTADS examined the question whether applicant was entitled to get the concession available to offsprings of inter-caste married couple and the same was denied. We have already found that the findings entered by the Screening Committee as well as KIRTADS cannot be sustained in law. KIRTADS as well as the Screening Committee had an opportunity to examine the question of the petitioner's entitlement and it was examined also. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that even though the inter-caste marriage certificate was not produced along with the application, it is not a valid ground for rejecting the application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case."
It is abundantly clear that the facts of the two cases are not identical. In Deepthy's case, the petitioner had produced a community certificate along with the application, but failed to produce inter-caste marriage certificate. The Division Bench considered that as a special case and directed grant W.P(C) No. 5300 of 2012 -: 4 :- of benefit of reservation. But, in that decision, the Division Bench had noted the provisions of the prospectus and the requirement to produce the certificates along with the application. Going by the said decision, departure from the normal course can only be for special circumstances warranting such departure. In this case, there is absolutely no special circumstance pointed out by the petitioner for taking a lenient view.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the community certificate along with the application. Admittedly, the prospectus contains a clause which stipulates that the certificates should be in the form provided in the application itself, which has not been done.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/