IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13159 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MOHANDAS, 'UTHARA',PEDIKKULAM, PULIMATH VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KRISHNA MOHAN, S/O. MOHANDAS, 'UTHARA', PEDIKKULAM, PULIMATH VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (2ND PETITIONER BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER THE 1ST PETITIONER). BY ADVS. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU, SMT.P.MEENAKUMARI. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, VTH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTINGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 13159 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claims to belong to the Ezhava community. The 2nd petitioner is the minor son of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner submitted an application for entrance examination for admission to professional courses in the State of Kerala, this year. He was supposed to obtain a certificate regarding his caste as well as a certificate stating as to whether or not he comes within the creamy layer category, in the application form itself. But according to the petitioners, the Village Officer did not fill up the caste certificate in the form on the ground that the petitioner has already shown his caste as Ezhava community in the application form itself. However Ext.P4 was issued to the 2nd petitioner wherein his claim for reservation as an Ezhava was disallowed. According to the petitioners, on receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioners met the respondent personally and W.P.(C)No. 13159 of 2010 -2- requested him to include the 2nd petitioner in the OBC (Ezhava) category. But the respondent did not accede to the same. It is under the above circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: a) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to include the 2nd petitioner in the category of Ezhava OBC by holding that the 2nd petitioner is an Ezhava - Hindu eligible and entitled to enjoy reservation in professional courses in the State of Kerala. b) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent to quash or cancel his finding in Exhibit P4 that the claim of 2nd petitioner as Ezhava is disallowed, by holding that such a finding is unwarranted in the light of Exhibits P1 and P2. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is the lookout of the petitioners to see that the application form submitted by the 2nd petitioner is complete in all respects. He submits that they very well knew that they have to obtain a certificate from the Village Officer certifying the 2nd petitioner's community, in the space provided for the same in the application form itself. The prospectus itself clearly directs the candidates to fill up the W.P.(C)No. 13159 of 2010 -3- form carefully without omitting any details. That being so, the learned Government Pleader submits that, it was the duty of the petitioners to see that the application is in order in all respects. Since the petitioners have not cared to see that the application submitted is in order the 2nd petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of reservation claimed is his contention. He further points out that in Ext.P4 itself the 2nd petitioner was specifically directed that complaints, if any, in respect of the details of candidates mentioned in Ext.P4 shall be preferred to the respondent in writing on or before 12.03.2010. Admittedly, the petitioners have not chosen to prefer a complaint in writing within the stipulated time is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, it is the lookout to the petitioners to see that the applications submitted by the petitioners is in order in all respects. Admittedly the community certificate portion in W.P.(C)No. 13159 of 2010 -4- the application form has not been filled up. If the Village Officer had refused to fill it up for any reason, it was for the petitioners to take up the matter appropriately before the appropriate authorities immediately. They cannot simply accept what the Village Officer says, even if what they say is correct. Apart from that, in Ext.P4, it is specifically stated that the 2nd petitioner's claim for reservation category has been disallowed and complaints if any, in respect of the details mentioned in Ext.P4 shall be preferred in writing before the respondents on or before 12.03.2010. Admittedly the petitioners have not chosen to file any complaint. For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/