IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 18102 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SUDHEER, THEKKETHARA, MARUTHA ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, KAU POST, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRI UNIVER FOR R1 &2 BY G.P.SRI.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P(C).No.18102 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for the post of LDV driver for the Kerala Agricultural University, pursuant to the notification dated 19.2.2004. It is stated that the second respondent conducted the trade test and driving test on 5.3.2010. Ext.P2 rank list was published by the University, wherein the petitioner is rank No.81, in the “non reserve category”. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Muslim Community and he is entitled to reservation under the OBC category. Therefore, the name of the petitioner should have been included in the supplementary list in Ext.P2. The petitioner states that the benefit of reservation was not granted to him by an inadvertent mistake committed by him by not showing in the application that he claims reservation. The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 certificate dated 17.3.2010 issued by the village officer shows that the petitioner belongs W.P(C).No.18102 of 2010 2 to muslim community and that he does not belong to the Creamy Layer. The petitioner contends that the benefits available to the Backward Community cannot be waived and that the legitimate benefit available to the petitioner should have been granted in his favour by the University. 2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are the following: “i) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to place the petitioner in Ext.P2 ranked list in the reservation category for the appointment of LDV driver. ii) To direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of LDV driver under the reservation category by considering Ext.P3 and P4 requests in the light of Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Village Officer forthwith; iii)To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.” 3. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the University notified ten vacancies of LDV Driver as per notification dated 19.2.2004. Last date for receipt of application was on 31.3.2004. Written test was conducted on 7.6.2009. Selection W.P(C).No.18102 of 2010 3 Committee for conducting practical test was constituted and practical test was conducted for 544 candidates, who were qualified in the written test. The rank list was published on 1.6.2010. Ten candidates were advised from the rank list. The petitioner never claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of reservation. In Ext.R1 application form, column 13 is ”Are you eligible for Reservation in appointments? If YES give details (Attach Certificate)”. The petitioner did not claim the benefit of reservation and he specifically stated “No” in column 13 of the application. The very fact that the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate was obtained by the petitioner only on 17.3.2010 indicates that the petitioner was not keen on claiming the benefits of reservation at any point of time earlier. It is submitted that the application cannot be corrected after the selection process is over. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs. 4. The petitioner was fully aware or he should be deemed to be aware that relevant information W.P(C).No.18102 of 2010 4 should be supplied in the application. The candidates are specifically asked as to whether they claim any reservation. The petitioner said 'No' in the relevant column. He appeared for the written test and the trade test. At no point of time, he ever raised a contention that he was entitled to reservation. The name of the petitioner is included in the main list and not in the supplementary list. At this juncture, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he is entitled to the reservation and therefore, the rank list is liable to be recast. If such a contention is accepted, there would be no finality to the selection and several persons may come forward with similar claims. It is well settled that similar claims cannot be put forward at the belated stage after the selection process is over. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms