IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1376 of 2008 (M/S) Pradeep Kumar (Minor), S/o Sri Muni Ram Jangra, Through his natural guardian Father Sri Muni Ram Jangra R/o House No. 4047-B, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. …………………..Petitioner. Versus (1) Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, District Haridwar, through its Registrar. (2) Org. Chairman, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, District Haridwar. ………..……..Respondents. Sri B.D. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner as Other Backward Caste (for short OBC) candidate and to give admission in the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. A further direction has been sought to quash letter dated 03.07.2008 (copy annexure 6 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been informed that he would be treated as a general candidate instead of OBC as he failed to produce the OBC certificate within time. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on their behalf. 2 (3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioner is resident of Chandigarh and belongs to OBC category, who appeared in Joint Entrance Examination (for short J.E.E.)-2008 for admission in under graduate course. The examination was held on 13th April 2008. It is stated in the writ petition that the brochure supplied to the candidates indicated that there was reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but as to the reservation for the OBC candidates it was mentioned that the Government Orders were awaited. The result of the written examination was declared on 30th May 2008 and petitioner stood at 3653 in the merit list but his all India rank in OBC category was 473. Through letter dated 30th May 2008 the petitioner received a communication that he would be considered in the counseling and he will have to produce OBC certificate for getting admission in that category by 17.06.2008 i.e. the date of counseling. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to produce the OBC certificate on the date of counseling. It is also admitted in Para 5 of the writ petition that there was no provision of provisional admission as OBC candidate in the counseling brochure. The petitioner has taken the plea that while the candidates were allowed to produce the qualifying examination certificate by 30th September 2008, as provided in the brochure, but for producing the OBC certificate no such facility was given. The petitioner requested for further time to produce the OBC certificate on which the respondents allowed time only up to 23rd June 2008 to produce the OBC certificate. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been admitted that an undertaking was taken from the petitioner to the effect that the OBC certificate would be produced positively by that date i.e. 23rd June 2008. However, the petitioner 3 failed to produce the OBC certificate by that dead line. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 03.07.2008 informed that the petitioner’s candidature as OBC candidate has been rejected and he will be treated to be a general category candidate. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that it was not in the hands of the petitioner to obtain OBC certificate within the time allowed by the respondents, as such, he cannot be deprived of admission on that ground. Hence, this writ petition. (4) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Registrar of the Indian Institute of Technology (for short I.I.T.), Roorkee. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, (Central Act No. 5 of 2007) was published in the official gazette of India in January 2007, which provided that the reservations would be provided in the central educational institutions (for example IIM and IIT) from the academic session 2008-09. The vires of aforesaid Act was challenged in some writ petitions filed before the apex court and it was decided only in April 2008 that 27% reservation in admissions would be given to OBC in the Central Educational Institutions. Accordingly, the admission was provided in the phased manner. In the counter affidavit it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner belongs to Chandigarh and have appeared in J.E.E.-2008 conducted by IIT, Roorkee and its result was declared on 30th May 2008. It is also admitted that in the brochure it was provided that the Government Orders were awaited for providing admissions under OBC category. It is also admitted that in the counseling the petitioner was required to file the 4 OBC certificate and was given further time up to 23rd June 2008 but he failed to produce the same. As to the time limit of 30th September 2008 it has been stated that said limit applies only for producing qualifying examination proof and not to the caste certificates. It has been further stated that the petitioner has not been discriminated in the matter of admission. In the counter affidavit it is stated that at the time of filling form in January 2008, the petitioner knew that he is applying in the OBC category as such non filing of the OBC certificate by the date of counseling disentitles him the admission. (5) Admittedly, the petitioner appeared in J.E.E.-2008 for admission in IIT. It is also not disputed that he appeared in the OBC category. His rank in the merit list is also not disputed. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that while candidates were allowed to produce the educational qualification proof by 30th September 2008, the caste certificates were required to be filed only by the date of counseling i.e. 17th June 2008 (which was extended for 23rd June 2008 for the petitioner on his request). This distinction is pleaded to be arbitrary in nature and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court is unable to accept the argument for the reason that many candidates who fill the forms in the month of January 2008 are those who are appearing in the qualifying examination for that year as such declaration of their qualifying examination result is not in their hands and that is why the period to file the proof of education qualification examination is provided to all the candidates up to 30th September 2008 but as far as the certificate of OBC is concerned the candidate knew in the month of January 2008 itself (as 4th January 2008 was 5 the last date of filing applications) that he is applying for the OBC category, as such he could have obtained for the OBC certificate much before unlike the candidates who were appearing in the qualifying examination which are generally held in the coming summers. As such, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable classification between the two classes. The petitioner has not been discriminated and persons like him are not reported to have given admissions nor anyone else has been given admission in place of the petitioner. (6) Apart from above, it is admitted to the petitioner in the writ petition itself that he had given the undertaking that he would produce the OBC certificate by the extended date of 23rd June 2008, failing which his candidature would not be treated in that category. After giving such an undertaking to the authorities concerned, the petitioner now cannot claim admission as of right in the respondent – Institute. (7) For the reasons as discussed above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 11.11.2008 NS