IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21062 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANU SREELATHA SUBBY, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SUBBAYYAN CHETTIAR, S.S.VILLA, THEKKADA, VEMBAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 615. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.21062/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES 2011 P3 COPY OF THE RESULT SHEET OF THE PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26/7/2011 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/7/2011 WITH COPIES OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE AND INCOME CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE PAGES 3 AND 5 OF THE PROSPECTUSFOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES 2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).21062/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner appeared in the Entrance Examination for Professional courses with Roll No.111448. In the General Rank List for Engineering Courses, his rank is 12957. According to the petitioner, at the time of submission of application for Entrance Examination, he was at Doha and hence, he could not submit his community certificate and income certificate. Therefore, he could not claim the benefit available to Backward Hindu caste of Vanika Vaisya. 2. It is stated that subsequently, petitioner approached the second respondent and produced the community certificate and income certificate along with Ext.P5 representation. However, the same was not accepted. Therefore, this writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to the second respondent to accept the certificates and include the petitioner in the category/community list for admission to the Engineering Graduate Course, 2011. W.P.(C).21062/11 2 3. The relevant portion of the prospectus has been produced as Ext.P6. Clause 5(i) dealing with Special/Mandatory reservations which reads as under:- CLAIMS FOR RESERVATION AND CERTIFICATES TO BE PRODUCED (i).Claims for Special/Mandatory reservations must be made by a candidate at the time of submission of application for the Entrance Examination with supporting documents as required. The claim has to be specified in the application form and OMR date sheet in the appropriate places. Claims made after the submission of application will not be entertained even if supporting evidences are produced. The claims for Special and Mandatory reservation once made in the application form and OMR sheet cannot be altered by the candidate under any circumstance. This provision therefore mandates that a claim of an applicant for Special/Mandatory reservation should be made at the time of submission of the application, and that the claim made after the submission of the application will not be entertained, even if supporting evidences are produced. This therefore evidences that it is for an applicant to claim the benefit duly supported by the W.P.(C).21062/11 3 document substantiating the same and that such claim and documents should be made when the application is made. Prospectus does not provide for submission of documents at a later point of time and on the other hand, it provides that claims made and documents produced later shall not be entertained. Admittedly, petitioner did not produce the certificates along with the application and it was therefore, that he was not given the benefit now claimed. 4. In that view of the matter this Court will not be justified in directing the second respondent to accept the documents belatedly produced. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs