WP(C) 4221/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI Heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard B. Go goi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mrs. H.M . Phukan learned Government Advocate appears for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Mr. Pathak prays for striking out the names of the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 from th e array of parties. Prayer is allowed. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Bania-Teli community and the Ch airman, Sub-Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Rangia, had issued him a caste certificate on 5.1.1991 showing him to be belonging to Scheduled Caste( SC) category. In response to an advertisement inviting applications for admissio n to pursue MBBS course in the Medical Colleges of Assam for the session 2011-20 12, the petitioner submitted his application in ’Form A’ for appearing in the Co mmon Entrance Examination, for short, CEE, as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. Result of the CEE was declared on 5.6.2011 and his position in the merit list was 163. The petitioner had secured 200 marks in CEE. In view of the requirements of the Rules that ’Form B’ with all its enclosures is to be sub mitted at the time of counseling, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 6 for countersigning the Scheduled Caste certificate. However, the respondent no. 6 stated that his caste is not Scheduled Caste but he belongs to Other Backward Classes and that the certificate issued to him on 5.1.1991 was erroneous. The r espondent No.6 had called for an enquiry report from the Circle Officer, Rangia Revenue Circle, who submitted a report dated 11.7.2011 stating that the petition er’s status is that of one belonging to Other Backward Classes. The respondent N o. 6 by an order dated 12.7.2006 had cancelled the Scheduled Caste certificate a nd directed him to be treated as Other Backward Classes. In view of the aforesai d enquiry report, All Assam Other Backward Classes Association issued a caste ce rtificate showing that the petitioner’s caste is recognized as Other Backward Cl asses and such certificate was duly countersigned. This certificate is dated 12. 7.2011. In the meantime, on 2.7.2011, an Educational Notice was issued fixing da tes of counseling as per programme indicated therein and the petitioner’s date o f counseling was fixed on 14.7.2011. The petitioner had attended counseling that was held on 14.7.2011. The petitioner had also produced his Other Backward Clas ses certificate before the Selection Board. The Selection Board refused to take cognizance of such certificate on the ground that the petitioner in ’Form A’ had declared himself that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Category. In view of the af oresaid developments, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and the appellate a uthority by an order dated 11.8.2011 had rejected the appeal filed by the petiti oner on the ground that the Rules do not permit change of status of caste after submission of ’Form A’. An affidavit-in-opposition had been filed by the respondent No.2 stating that th e petitioner could not produce his Scheduled Caste Certificate before the Select ion Board at the time of counseling and as such he was considered as a candidate belonging to General Unreserved Category and that as per his merit position, he was within the zone of consideration for general merit category. However, as hi s percentage of marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in HSSLC Examination was below 60%, which is a requirement for General Unreserved categor y, his case was rejected as a General Unreserved Category candidate. It has also stated that when the petitioner approached the Selection Board for consideratio n of his case as an Other Backward Classes category candidate, the request was d eclined as the name of the petitioner did not find place in the merit list of th e Other Backward Classes candidates. It is also stated that the Selection Board unanimously had taken a resolution at the outset of the counseling not to entert ain the candidates who had applied for Reserved Category status after the public ation of the merit list by the Dibrugarh University. It is also stated that the submission of caste certificate at a later date will result in complete alterati on of the merit list. It is also stated that if the instructions as per the adve rtisement and the Rules for admission are not followed, administratively it will not be feasible to complete the time bound schedule of admission. It has, howev er, been conceded that authorities had always taken a lenient and humanitarian v iew and had also allowed the prayer of some of the students who had failed to co mply with certain instructions due to ignorance or technical problems before pub lication of result of CEE and the Education Notice calling the candidates for co unseling, but stating that it cannot not be continued till the date of counselin g. In the said affidavit, the respondent No. 2 also stated that according to the notifications for the Department of Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Commun ities, there is no community which is known as Bania-Teli and as per notificatio n dated 4.1.1984, the Teli caste is treated as Most Other Backward Classes(Tea G arden and Ex-Tea Garden Tribes) and in terms of notification dated 1.4.2003,Bani a Caste is treated as Scheduled Caste category . Mr. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his candidature as Scheduled Caste category candidate in view of the certificate issued by the competent authority way back in the yea r 1991. Because of such certificate issued, which was not doubted at any point o f time, the petitioner believed that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community . Mr. Pathak has also submitted that there is no dispute that he does not belong to Reserved Category and the dispute had arisen with regard to what Reserved Ca tegory he belongs to. Mr. Pathak has also submitted that while the petitioner’s position in the merit list is 163, the position of the first candidate in the ca tegory of Other Backward Classes in the merit list is 349. Therefore, decidedly, the petitioner is much more meritorious than the other candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes Community. It is his submission that there is no supp ression or misrepresentation of facts on the part of the petitioner and he has d uly disclosed materials before this Court demonstrating under what circumstances the Other Backward Classes certificate had been obtained. He submits that the f acts and circumstances of the case would warrant a suitable direction from this Court to accept the Other Backward Classes certificate issued to the petitioner on 12.7.2011 and to direct the respondent authorities to take further steps as a re required to be taken in accordance with law so as to enable the petitioner to get a seat in the MBBS course. In reiteration of the stand taken in the affidavit, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standi ng Counsel has forcefully argued that having regard to the provisions of the Rul es, the departmental authorities and the Selection Board was right in not entert aining the claim made by the petitioner during counseling on 14.7.2011. It is hi s contention that the petitioner having staked his candidature as a Scheduled Ca ste Category candidate at the time of submission of ’Form A\, he cannot be allow ed to change his status to Other Backward Classes subsequently under any circums tances. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have received du e consideration of this Court. I have also considered, and perused the materials on record as well as the provisions contained in Medical Colleges of Assam, Reg ional Dental College, Guwahati and Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati(Regula tion of Admission of Undergraduate Students) Rules, 2007, for short, the Rules. The Rules are not rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India or an y statute. Rule 7 provides for the manner and method of submission of application. The appl ication form contains two parts - \A\ and \B\, bearing the same serial number. T he ’Form A’ is to be submitted as the first application form for appearing in th e CEE. The candidates are asked to submit ’Form ’A’ at the time of applying for the CEE and the ’Form B’ with all its enclosures is to be submitted at the time of counseling if the candidate is called for such counseling. Rule 7(8) provides that a candidate who desires to be considered in respect of a particular Reserv ed Category shall be considered in respect of that particular category only, pro vided appropriate certificate is furnished in support thereof in the form set ou t in ’Form B’. True, the petitioner had indicated in ’Form A’ that he belongs to Scheduled Cast e category. He did so because he was granted a certificate by a competent author ity certifying him as belonging to Scheduled Caste category way back on 5.1.1991 . The authority which issued the certificate to him is the Chairman, Sub- Divisi onal Scheduled Caste Development Board, Rangia. In terms of Rule 15(2), certific ates issued by such an authority is to be countersigned by Deputy Commissioner o r Sub-Divisional Officer. When the petitioner approached the respondent No.6, i. e. the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Officer, after making an enquiry, cancelled ’ the Scheduled Caste certificate issued vide No. 790 on 5.1.1991 by an order da ted 12.7.2011 with a further direction that the petitioner be treated as belongi ng to Other Backward Classes. Accordingly, a certificate was issued on 12.7.2011 by the competent authority duly countersigned by the Executive Magistrate, Rang ia, which the petitioner had produced before the Selection Board on 14.7.2011. F rom the affidavit, it is noticed that the departmental authorities had also allo wed prayer of some candidates who failed to comply with certain directions, befo re publication of the result of the CEE. Going by the stand taken in the affidav it, it does not seem to this Court that change of Reserved Category status is wh olly impermissible. If the petitioner could have applied as an Other Backward Cl asses Category candidate, having regard to the merit list, he would have been at the top of the list in the category of Other Backward Classes candidates. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Reserved Category candidate. In the pec uliar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that t his Court of equity should lean in favour of the petitioner and a suitable direc tion is called for from this Court to direct the respondent authorities, more pa rticularly, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to accept the Other Backward Classes certi ficate of the petitioner dated 12.7.2011 and to treat the petitioner as a candid ate belonging to the Other Backward Classes Category and to take such consequent ial actions as are required to be taken in accordance with law, inasmuch as, to deny the benefit of Other Backward Classes Category candidate to the petitioner will be inequitable and the same would not promote the cause of substantial just ice. Taking that view, the order dated 11.8.2011 is interfered with. It is stated at the bar that the last date fixed for MBBS admission is 30.9.2011 and, therefore, it is expected that the authorities would do the needful within the time aforesaid. While issuing notice of motion on 20.7.2011, this Court had passed an interim or der directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to keep one seat vacant until further o rder(s) from this Court. In the order passed by the appellate authority, it has been indicated that two seats under Martyr’s quota have remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidate in the said category. This order for acceptance of the Other Backward Classes caste certificate has be en passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the same shall not be cited as a precedent. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No costs.