IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18975 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ AASHINA SOMAN, 18 YEARES D/O O.V.SOMAN, OOLIKKARA HOUSE, CHERAI POST ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIPPURAM PRAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18975 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner appeared for the common entrance test for admission to professional courses in the State of Kerala for this year. She obtained fairly high rank. But she being an Ezhava, she is entitled to admission taking into account reservation benefits applicable to Ezhava candidates. But unfortunately for the petitioner, in the application submitted by her, the income certificate given by the Village Officer certified that the income of the petitioner's family was Rs.2,55,384/- whereas the income limit for becoming eligible for reservation was Rs.2.5 lakhs. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for reservation was not considered as the income limit for the purpose of reservation is Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner would contend that the income certificate in Ext.P2 application was given by the Village Officer, taking into account the future salary of the petitioner's parents for the next year and not the income for the previous year. According to the petitioner, going by the decision of this Court in w.p.c.18975/08 2 Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 44] it is the income prior to the date of application that has to be taken into account, and not the next year's income. In the above circumstances, the petitioner obtained a fresh income certificate, Ext.P12 certifying the income of her family as Rs.2,16,581/-, and submitted the same before the Entrance Commissioner along with Ext.P11 representation dated 10.6.2008. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to accept Ext.P12 income certificate as part of the application and to consider the petitioner's case for admission granting her reservation. 2. This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader. He would submit that the prospectus itself contains stringent instructions regarding the way the application has to be filled up and sufficient warning has been given in the prospectus itself to the effect that any mistake in the application cannot be later corrected and, certificates later produced will not be considered. He also points out that going by Ext.P5 salary certificate of the petitioner's mother and the income of the father shown in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the total income would come to Rs.2,52,612/-. This is explained by the petitioner that it is w.p.c.18975/08 3 because Ext.P5 is for the month of January. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In Ext.P2 application the petitioner obtained income certificate on 13.2.2008. Therefore, on 13.2.2008, the petitioner and her parents were very well aware that in the application form the income shown was Rs.2,55,384/- which would make her ineligible for reservation. In spite of the same, if the income shown in the certificate was in any manner incorrect, neither the petitioner nor her parents took any steps to get the same corrected in accordance with law. The petitioner started the exercise of getting a new certificate only in June, 2008. When the prospectus specifically contains stringent instructions regarding the manner in which the applications have to be submitted, the petitioner is bound by the same. Admittedly the petitioner has not done the same. At this late stage I am not inclined to entertain such contention which would upset the admission process. I am also not satisfied that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Sreekumar's case (supra) is the law applicable in the case since a Division Bench of this Court has in Meerakutty v. State of Kerala [1991 (1) KLT 208] held that w.p.c.18975/08 4 the income for the purpose of admission is the income for the year in which the admission is sought for. Here the income of the petitioner's family shown in the application is the income for the year of admission, which is the correct one. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge