Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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):