IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18787 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DHASTHAKEER-I, MINOR, AGED 17 YEARS REP. BY HIS FATHER/GUARGIAN, IRSHAD, PATTARAZHIKAN HOUSE, THEKKUMBAGAM PO. PARAVUR BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.GEETHA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: ------------- THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAOPURAM-0 695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.18787 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. According to the petitioner, the disability of the petitioner on account of the handicap is 40 per cent. Persons having 40 per cent disability are entitled to reservation in the matter of admission to professional courses. The petitioner applied for admission this year. Along with the application the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 disability certificate dated 5.4.1993. In spite of the same, the petitioner has not been included in the list of physically disabled persons seeking admission for the purpose of consideration of their claim for reservation. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: 'a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent to include the petitioner's name among the eligible candidates for admission to Engineering course, 2008 in the quota reserved for persons with disabilities (PD): b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent not to deny admission to the petitioner in the quota reserved for persons with disabilities (PD) for the Engineering course 2008, on the sole ground that, he has w.p.c.18787/08 2 not produced the latest disability certificate along with the application, since the disability suffered by the petitioner is permanent in nature as can be seen from Exhibit P1 andP2 certificates; c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent not to admit any candidate for the Engineering course, 2008 (in the seats reserved for “persons with disability”) by persons having lower rank than that of the petitioner in the Entrance examination result, before admitting the petitioner to that course in that reserved category;' 3. Learned Government Pleader points out that as per the conditions in the prospectus, the petitioner should have produced a disability certificate, certifying the degree of percentage of disability, issued not earlier that 12 months prior to the submission of the application, along with the application. According to him, since Ext.P1 certificate produced by the petitioner is dated 5.4.1993, the same does not conform to clause 5.3. of Ext.P1 prospectus. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner's claim cannot now be considered since the prospectus is binding on the petitioner and the petitioner has not submitted his application in conformity with the prospectus. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in case of permanent disability it is immaterial as to the date of certificate produced. She would also refer to the Rules w.p.c.18787/08 3 framed by the Government under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, as per which in the case of permanent disability the period of validity of the certificate need not be mentioned and only in the case of chances of variation in degree of disability, the period of validity need be stated in the certificate. According to her, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Ext.P1 certificate produced by the petitioner is dated 5.4.1993, the respondent ought to have considered the petitioner's application in accordance with law. She wold also submit that there are 139 seats set apart for admission to persons with disabilities and only 44 persons have been included in the list. Therefore, she would submit that no other candidate would be prejudiced if the petitioner also is included in the list in so far as it cannot be disputed that the petitioner in fact has 40% disability. The counsel would further submit that the petitioner has now obtained Ext.P2 certificate which also would support the petitioner's case. The counsel would also point out that the petitioner has got higher rank than all the persons included in the list. w.p.c.18787/08 4 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. Relevant portion of Clause 5.3. of Ext.P5 prospectus reads thus: “For claiming reservation under this category for MBBS/BDS/ BAMS/BSMS/BHMS/B.V.Sc. & AH course, an attested copy of the certificate of disability from the District Medical Board certifying the degree of percentage of disability issued not earlier than 3 months prior to the submission of application has to be attached with the application form. This certificate will be considered for granting this benefit for other Medical courses, Engineering and Architecture also. However, candidates under this category desirous of being considered only for other Medical/Agriculture courses (B.Sc. Nursing, B.Sc (MLT), B.Sc. Hons. (Agri), B.F.Sc. (Fisheries), B.Pharm] Engineering and Architecture, need attach only an attested copy of the certificate of disability from the District Medical Board certifying the degree of percentage of disability issued not earlier than 12 months prior to the submission of application along with the application form. No document/ certificate other than those mentioned above will be considered for determining disability. Based on the certificate produced along with the application form, candidates will be provisionally included under the 'Persons with Disability' category. In view of the above, it is a condition precedent that for a valid application, certificate of disability produced should have been one obtained not earlier than 12 months prior to the submission of application and the same should have been submitted along with the application. If the petitioner's contention is accepted, then the said prescription itself would be meaningless and the w.p.c.18787/08 5 respondent would be bound to accept any certificate having any date which cannot be the intention of inclusion of said clause in the prospectus. The prospectus is binding on the petitioner. In fact, the prospectus begins with a caution that the candidate should read the clauses in the prospectus carefully and, scrupulously follow the same. In this case, admittedly the application of the petitioner is not in conformity with the conditions in the prospectus. That being so, the respondent cannot now be directed to accept the petitioner's application as a valid one for the purpose of inclusion of the petitioner in the list of persons with disabilities for the purpose of admission. Although the petitioner deserves sympathy, in law his claim cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.18787/08 6