IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.1413 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.18367/2008(J), DATED 19/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- JOYIMON, PALATHADI VEEDU, PARUTHIPPALLY P.O., KUTTICHAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1413 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant had applied for admission to M.B.B.S. Course for the year 2008. According to the appellant, he being a Bachelor in Ayurvedic Medicine, he was entitled to be considered for admission under the quota reserved for that category of candidates and also under the reservation quota applicable to Nadar Christian (SIUC) community. 2. Admittedly the appellant had mentioned his community only as “Nadar Christian” in the Community Certificate available in the application form submitted before the Entrance Examination Commissioner. Subsequently, the appellant had, of course, produced Exhibit P5 community certificate obtained from the Village Officer showing his community as “Nadar Christian (SIUC)”. But, the Commissioner took the view that the certificate produced by the appellant at a subsequent stage cannot be accepted in view of the relevant clauses contained in the Prospectus. It was in the above circumstances, the appellant had preferred the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to respondent No.2 to extend the benefit of reservation as a member of the backward Nadar Christian (SIUC) community to him and to admit him for the M.B.B.S. Course under the Special category of reservation. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer and dismissed the W.A.No.1413 of 2008 - 2 - writ petition holding that the stand taken by respondent No.2 was perfectly valid and justified in view of the specific clause contained in the Prospectus. 3. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Clause 7.8 of the Prospectus, which are extracted here: “7.8 (a) IMPORTANT: DOCUMENTS OR CERTIFICATES FURNISHED AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. * (b) NO OPPORTUNITY WILL BE GIVEN TO INCORPORATE ANY DETAILS AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION. * (c) INCOME CERTIFICATE & COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ATTACHED SEPARATELY, ALONG WITH DOWNLOADED APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. * Refer to the ruling of the Honorable High Court of Kerala in 1995(2) KLT 629, 1999(2) KLJ 836 and 1999(3) KLT 773”. The above clauses unambiguously show that documents or certificates furnished after the submission of the application would not be entertained under any circumstances. Similarly, it is also clearly stipulated that no opportunity would be given to incorporate any details after the submission of the application. 4. As mentioned earlier, though the appellant had filled up his community as “Nadar Christian (SIUC)” in the application, in the certificate produced by him, his community was shown only as “Nadar Christian”. W.A.No.1413 of 2008 - 3 - Though the appellant had later attempted to salvage the situation by producing Exhibit P5 certificate issued by the Village Officer, it could not have been accepted in view of the stipulations contained in the Prospectus. Therefore, in our view, the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (AIR 2004 S.C. 5043). After referring to paragraph 7 of the judgment, he contends that every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature of an applicant to a particular educational course. Having gone through the judgment, we are unable to accept the above contention canvassed by the learned counsel. 6. It may be noticed, in the reported case the candidate claimed the benefit of reservation earmarked for children of disabled military personnel. In fact, she was called for counselling. In the certificate issued by the Zilla Sainik Board to her father, against Column 3 which pertained to “Disabled/killed in war/hostilities”, the words “not eligible” were written. The fact remained that, her father was, in fact, discharged from military service due to permanent disability. She had produced a certificate later, which clearly indicated that her father was, in fact, a disabled Ex-serviceman. As noticed by their Lordships, the mistake was rectified in the second certificate issued by the Zilla Sainik Board, in which the words “permanently disabled” were clearly indicated. The candidate was not at all responsible for the mistake W.A.No.1413 of 2008 - 4 - committed by the Board. It was taking note of the aforesaid factual position their Lordships had observed that a mere infraction of the procedure relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 7. But, in the case on hand, Clause 7.8(a) clearly and unambiguously stipulates that any document/certificate furnished after the submission of the application would not be entertained under any circumstances. In our view, the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda's case (supra) will not be applicable to the present case on hand. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant. The appeal fails; and it is accordingly dismissed. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge