IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.15701 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Mahtab Ali. ... Petitioner vs. The Chairman, Joint Management Test to M.Sc.(JAM 2010), Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036. ... Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the respondent relating to publication of JAM 2010 – Admission Status in respect of the petitioner as published in their official website http://jam.iitm.ac.in/ jam2010online/admresult4.php on 17.7.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the OBC Category and finalise the results for Admission to M.Sc., in any of the IITs on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in Joint admission for M.Sc., - JAM-2010 conducted on 02-05-2010. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Arumugam For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Mukundan O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the respondent relating to publication of JAM 2010 – Admission Status in respect of the petitioner as published in their official website http://jam.iitm.ac.in/jam2010online/admresult4.php on 17.7.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the OBC Category and finalise the results for Admission to M.Sc., in any of the IITs on the basis of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ marks obtained by the petitioner in Joint admission for M.Sc., - JAM-2010 conducted on 02-05-2010. 2. Petitioner claims that he hails from remote village, Goyala in Muzaffarnagar District in Uttar Pradesh and belongs to Muslim (Fakeer) Community, which is recognized as Other Backward Community (OBC in short). Petitioner claim is that he does not belong to the creamy layer as mentioned in column 3 of the schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personal and Training O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08.09.93 as amended vide O.M.No.36033/3/2004 Estt.(Res.) dated 09.03.2004. 3. Petitioner applied for the Joint Admission Test JAM 2010 conducted by Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT in short). The process of admission to the IIT Course is twofold. In the first round, the candidates have to undergo what is called as Joint Admission Test and if the candidate is declared successful, he will be given a copy of the admission form with enclosures. After scrutiny of the admission form and the enclosures, the candidates will be called for counseling. Based on merit and after satisfying other requirements, the eligible candidates will be selected. 4. Insofar as the registration for the purpose of writing the Joint Admission Test for the year 2010 (JAM 2010), M/s IIT has prescribed certain dates. The issue of regular application for JAM 2010 started on 22.12.2009. Eligible candidates can get online the application and submit the same. Petitioner in this case chose to go through the online registration by downloading the exam application form from the website. The last date for online registration on website was fixed as 25.1.2010. Petitioner registered online on 20.1.2010. In addition to the registration, petitioner submitted the required exam fee together with the completed form and an annexure. This has to be submitted before the first February, 2010 and the petitioner submitted it well before the date and that is not disputed. Petitioner appeared for JAM 2010 Test on 2.5.2010 and was declared pass by the result published on 24.5.2010. Thereafter, the IIT sent the JAM 2010 admission form along with enclosures as follows:- (a)Undertaking, (b)Personal History, (c)Declaration Form, (d)Due Course Completion Certificate, (e)Proforma for Other Backward Classes (OBC) Certificate, (f)Format of Certificates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The above said particulars are also available on the website. It is further stated by the respondent that each of the individuals who have passed the examination JAM 2010 have been sent this application form individually. Petitioner also does not dispute the same, except stating that he did not receive the proforma for other Backward Classes (OBC) Certificate. The last date for submitting the admission form was fixed as 7.6.2010. Petitioner submitted his admission form along with enclosures on 2.6.2010 in the reserved category. The admission forms of all eligible candidates were considered and were called for counselling. Three dates were fixed for counselling as follows:- The first counselling was 16.10.2010, The second counselling was 2.7.2010 and The third and the last counselling was 17.7.2010., Thereafter, it is stated by the respondent that the admission was closed. The name of the petitioner was placed in the General category list and not in the OBC Category list. Therefore, the petitioner states that he contacted the IIT Chennai and was informed that the OBC Certificate given by him was not in terms of the form issued along with the admission brochure. As the certificate was not in the form prescribed, petitioner's candidature was considered under general category. 5. Petitioner states that at the time of submitting his fee for writing JAM 2010 Test, he enclosed along with the form, the OBC Certificate dated 6.2.2009 claiming under reserved category. The translated certificate from Hindi to English submitted by the petitioner reads as follows:- "FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES APPLYING FOR APPOINTMENT TO POSTS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA On the enquiry report of Revenue Inspector Shri Anil Kumar Area Sisaioli dated 06/02/2009. Sh.Mahtab Ali Son/daughter or Iliyas, resident of Village District/Division, Muzaffar Nagar in Uttar Pradesh State belongs to Utter Pradesh, Muslim (Fakeer) community which is recognized as a backward class under. 1. Resolution no.12011/68/93-BCC(C) dated 10.09.1993 published in the Gazette of India, Extra ordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.186 dated 13.09.1993. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Resolution no.12011/9/94-BCC dated 10.10.1994 published in the Gazette of India, Extra ordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.163 dated 20.10.1994. 3. Resolution no.12011/7/95-BCC dated 24.05.1995 published in the Gazette of India, Extra ordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.88 dated 25.05.1995. 4. Resolution no.12011/44/96-BCC dated 06.12.1996 published in the Gazette of India, Extra ordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.210 dated 11.12.1996. 5. Resolution no.36033/28/74 E STT(R.I.S.) dated 2.7.1997 published in the Gazette of India, dated 2.7.1997. 6. Shri Mahtab Ali And/or his family ordinarily resides in the Muzaffar Nagar District/Division of the Uttar Pradesh State. This is also to certify that he/she does not belong to the persons/sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule to the government of India, Department of Personnel & Training OM No.36033/28/74 E STT (R.I.S.) dated 2.7.1997. Sd/xxx Tahsildar Dated 06/2/2009 Budhana (Muzaffar Nagar)" The certificate states that the petitioner does not belong to the creamy layer. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that he should be considered under the OBC Category and not under the general category. 6. The difficulty expressed by the IIT is that as per the Proforma for Other Backward Class (OBC) Certificate, the certificate should be in the following manner:- "Proforma for Other Backward Class (OBC) Certificate (CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES APPLYING FOR ADMISSIONS TO CENTRAL https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (CELs), UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) This is to certify that Shri/Smt.Kum. .............................. Son/Daughter of Shri/Smt. ................ of Village/Town ............ District/Division ..................... in the ............ State belongs to the .......... Community which is recognized as a backward class under: (i) Resolution No.12011/68/93-BCC(C) dated 10.09.1993 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.186 dated 13.09.1993. (ii) Resolution No.12011/9/94-BCC dated 10.10.1994 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.163 dated 20.10.1994. (iii) Resolution No.12011/7/95-BCC dated 24.05.1995 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.88 dated 25.05.1995. (iv) Resolution No.12011/96/94-BCC dated 9/03/96. (v) Resolution No.12011/44/96-BCC dated 06.12.1996 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-I, Section-I, No.210 dated 11.12.1996. (vi) Resolution No.12011/13/97-BCC dated 3/12/97. (vii) Resolution No.12011/99/94-BCC dated 11/12/97. (viii) Resolution No.12011/68/98-BCC dated 27/10/99. (ix) Resolution No.12011/88/98-BCC dated 6/12/99 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I Section I No.270 dated 06/12/99. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (x) Resolution No.12011/36/99-BCC dated 04/04/2000 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I Section I No.71 dated 04/04/2000. (xi) Resolution No.12011/44/99-BCC dated 21/09/2000 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I Section I No.210 dated 21/09/2000. (xii) Resolution No.12015/9/2000-BCC dated 06/09/2001. (xiii) Resolution No.12011/1/2001-BCC dated 19/06/2003. (xiv) Resolution No.12011/4/2002-BCC dated 13/01/2004. (xv) Resolution No.12011/9/2004-BCC dated 16/01/2006 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I Section I No.210 dated 16/01/2006. Shri/Smt.Kum....................and/or his family ordinarily reside(s) in the ...... District/Division of .......... State. This is also to certify that he/she does not belong to the persons/sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08/09/93, modified vide OM No.36033/3/2004 Estt.(Res.) dated 09/03/2004, or the latest notification of the Government of India. This certificate is being issued based on the annual income/status of the parents /guardian of the applicant as on financial year ending March 31, 2009. Dated District Magistrate/ Seal: Deputy Commissioner, etc." (emphasis supplied) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The certificate dated 6.2.2009 submitted by the candidate does not cover the period 31.3.2009 and the format of the certificate also differs. The certificate submitted by the petitioner relates to candidates applying for appointment to a post in Government of India service and the date is shown as 6.2.2009 and the certificate in this case is for education purpose. Therefore, this contradiction disentitles the petitioner from being considered under the OBC Category. The petitioner has, however, been considered in the general category. 7. Realizing that there is some mistake in the form, petitioner got the correct certificate on 18.6.2010 and submitted the same on 23.6.2010 to the IIT Madras. Since the petitioner's claim for OBC candidature was not considered in spite of submitting the correct certificate dated 18.6.2010 and contending that the earlier certificate dated 6.2.2009 is valid for admission, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief. 8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner downloaded the Information Brochure for JAM 2010 Test from the Website and the Appendix-III which relates to certificates to be produced by Other Backward Classes seeking admission to Central Educational Institutions does not contain the clause that the certificate issued should be based on annual income/status of the parents/guardian of the applicant for the financial year ending March, 31, 2009. Therefore, the certificate dated 6.2.2009 submitted by the petitioner should be taken as valid. This appears to be the main contention of the petitioner stating that since he has registered online for writing the examination and the above stated condition does not find place in Appendix-III, the respondent IIT cannot reject his claim stating that the certificate submitted is not in the format prescribed. Petitioner's counsel tried to justify the petitioner's stand by relying on the Information Brochure downloaded from the Website. 9. The respondent's counsel on the contrary filed a counter- affidavit stating that the admission for JAM 2010 Test was conducted by IIT Madras and it is the common admission test for Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Delhi, Guwahati, Kanpur, Kharagpur, Madras, Roorkee, Hyderabad. The IIT Madras is shown as the nodal institute. According to the respondent, the Website relevant for the purpose of downloading the application to write the JAM 2010 Test and the admission form and other details is "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in". Even if the candidate goes through any other website it will be linked to "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in" only. In other words any candidate who wants to apply for the JAM 2010 Test will have to necessarily approach the above said website, both for the purpose of taking out the details of entrance test and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admission including the downloading of the application form. The respondent's specific stand is that the test application form is available only under "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in" website and the registration will also be to the same website. It also applies to admission after passing the entrance test. Since the petitioner has not submitted the OBC Certificates in the prescribed form, his candidature was not considered in the reserved category. 10. Petitioner's plea for considering his claim under OBC Category has rightly been rejected by the respondent and the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the certificates produced at the time of entrance test and admission should be considered as valid cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- (i) The Online application form submitted by the petitioner for the Joint Admission Test for JAM 2010 admittedly shows that it is issued by the JAM IIT Madras and the petitioner could not have downloaded the application form only from the "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in" website. A photocopy of the online application form dated 20.01.2010 was submitted before this Court for verification and the same form was used by the petitioner while applying to enroll to the test. (ii) If the application form has been downloaded from the "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in" website, then as pointed out by Shri Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the admission form will be in the format as set out in the website "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in" The specification of OBC Certificate will also be as stated above. The certificate dated 6.2.2009, which is not as per the format, cannot be valid for considering the case of the petitioner under OBC Category. The respondent in the Information Brochure issued by the Organizing Institute, viz., Indian Institute of Technology, Madras has stated in para 10 as follows:- "10. RESERVED SEATS In every programme, certain number of seats is reserved for the candidates belonging to various reserved categories. The number of seats reserved under various categories is given in Table 1. A candidate who seeks admission under SC/ST/OBC (non-creamy layer) category must submit, along with the Application Form, the requisite certificate (in the format given in Appendix- III for the OBC non-creamy layer) issued by a competent authority as specified in Appendix- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ II, failing which his/her candidature for admission will not be considered under that reserved category." The emphasis on the format is as per Appendix-III for OBC non- creamy layer and the petitioner should have noticed it for seeking admission under that category. The OBC Certificate as per the Appendix should be submitted on or before 7.6.2010. In this case, the petitioner submitted the admission application in time, but with an invalid OBC Certificate and therefore, cannot claim the benefit under that category. (iii) It is not as if the petitioner alone has been singled out for rejection. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit, the case of 42 candidates were considered on a similar plea and rejected uniformly to avoid the plea of arbitrariness. Para 15 which is relevant in the counter-affidavit reads as follows:- "15. It is necessary to state that the Respondent has found that 121 candidates in all have submitted invalid OBC certificates. Out of these 43 candidates have submitted on their own accord fresh OBC (non-creamy layer) certificate in the prescribed format after the first round of admission/course allocation on 16.6.2010. If the petitioner's prayer is granted then the entire allotment made to about 1200 seats would have to be redone and the benefit extended to the petitioner has to be extended to the other 42 candidates who had also furnished fresh certificates after much delay thus unsettling the settled position and leading to chaos and confusion among the students." Therefore, the plea of the petitioner's counsel that the minor variation can be overlooked cannot be accepted. It will unsettle the entire admission. (iv) Clause 10 of the Admission Information Brochure clearly specifies that the candidates seeking admission under OBC Category must submit the application along with Appendix-III form. If not, the candidature for admission will not be considered under the reserved category. Hence the respondents are justified in rejecting petitioner's claim. (v) Since the petitioner passed the exam, but did not submit the OBC certificate in the prescribed format his case was considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under general category and the respondent Institute cannot be faulted as they acted only in accordance with the procedure prescribed. (vi)One other aspect which fortifies the stand of the respondent is that all the candidates who have passed the examination have been served with the application form for admission under JAM 2010 along with the enclosures as has been pointed out in (a) to (f) in para 4 of this order and that contains the Format for OBC. Petitioner does not deny the receipt of application form, but only states that the particular Proforma alone was missing. This stand appears to be an after thought as the petitioner has not stated so in his affidavit. There is no such statement earlier that he did not receive the OBC proforma. The admission form and enclosures have been received by the petitioner after passing the test on 24.5.2010. He has filled up this form. The petitioner necessarily has to comply with the conditions contained therein to be considered under the OBC Category. (vii) The plea that the IIT Kharagpur website does not contain the date which is now specified by the respondent and, therefore, petitioner is not at fault, cannot be accepted because the petitioner is fully aware that he is applying through the nodal institute IIT Madras. It is established in Court by use of computer that any candidate who wants admission under JAM 2010 will have to approach "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in" website for all information. This puts to rest all doubts raised by the petitioner. (viii) Petitioner, a candidate for IIT admission cannot plead ignorance of the procedure or about the nature of application that has to be submitted. It may that by oversight the petitioner did not realize the mistake. But the respondent institute, however, cannot be directed to consider the petitioner's claim as the certificate is submitted belatedly as in the case of 42 others. All such candidates were treated uniformly. (ix) Considering such claims after closure of the last date will create confusion in the admission list. This has been explained in para 15 of the counter-affidavit. It is not as if the respondent institute has taken the issue lightly. Since several candidates have submitted the OBC Certificate at a latter date and realising that difficulty will arise, the respondent have posted on their website on 27.2.2010 as follows:- "LATE SUBMISSOIN OF OBC NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is noted, after the first round of announcements of seats, that some of the candidates who seek the benefit of reservation for OBC (Non-creamy Layer) in respect of JAM 2010, have of their own accord sent afresh the requisite certificate in the format given in Appendix-III (of JAM 2010 Information Brochure). It is hereby informed to all candidates that such certificates forwarded after the due date cannot be taken into consideration in view of clause Reserved seats of the JAM 2010 information Brochure (page 5) which is extracted as under: "A candidate who seeks admission under SC/ST/OBC (non-creamy layer) must submit, along with the Application Form, the requisite certificate (in the format given in Appendix-III for the OBC non-creamy layer) issued by a competent authority so specified in Appendix-II failing which his/her candidature for admission will not be considered under that reserved category." The message is loud and clear that, beyond the relevant date, certificates produced will not be accepted. 11. It is not as if the petitioner alone has knocked the door of the respondent after due date. Several other candidates have submitted certificates after the relevant date with similar request and that has been negatived by the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the petitioner's plea. The procedure of the respondent institute cannot be changed at the behest of the one or the other candidates. It will lead to chaos in admission. 12. The irregularity pointed out in the IIT, Kharagpur website has also been explained by the respondent. The material loaded into the IIT Kharagpur website is of the year 2009. It has not been corrected. In any event, as earlier pointed out the candidates for JAM 2010 have to necessarily visit "IIT Madras jam.iitm.ac.in" website for downloading application both for the test and for the admission and the petitioner's case is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ different. Since the petitioner failed to submit the Appendix- III form claiming reservation under OBC Category within the time frame, in the format specified by the respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the relief as prayed for and the Writ Petition fails. 13. Finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ts To The Chairman, Joint Management Test to M.Sc.(JAM 2010), Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036. 1 cc to Mr.R. Arumugam, advocate, Sr. 74772 1 cc to Mr. Karthik, Advocate, Sr. 74807 W.P.No.15701 of 2010 JSV (CO) kk 19/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/