IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17994 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANNA AELIN.V.A., D/O.ALPHONS V.A., VARYATH HOUSE, NEAR M.M.H.S.S. THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI - 682 021. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.17994 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed an application for appearing in the common entrance examination for Professional Degree Courses in Kerala State for the year 2008. The petitioner wanted to claim reservation in admission as an OBC. For this purpose, the petitioner had to furnish a certificate of income in the application form itself certifying the income of the family of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Village Officer, who certified the income of the family of the petitioner as Rs.3,85,922/-. That certificate was issued on 23.2.2008. Subsequently, the results of the common entrance test was published. The petitioner was included in the rank list. However, in view of the income certificate produced in the application, the petitioner would not be eligible for reservation, since the income limit prescribed for becoming eligible for reservation as an OBC was Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The petitioner now seeks reservation on the basis of Ext.P4 income certificate now issued by the Village Officer certifying the W.P.(c)No.17994/08 2 income of the family of the petitioner as Rs.2,15,472/-. The petitioner contends that at the time when the petitioner obtained the original income certificate, the Village Officer computed the income of the petitioner's father and mother for the previous year prior to the date of application. During the previous year, the petitioner's father was employed in FACT and her mother was employed in the Water Authority. It is based on the income they received as salary for the previous year that the original income certificate was issued. The petitioner's contention is that her father retired in January, 2008 and thereafter he was getting only pension. If the pension of the petitioner's father for the year of admission is calculated then the income of the family would be the one as certified in Ext.P4 certificate. The petitioner further contends that at the time of obtaining the original certificate itself, the petitioner had raised this contention and the Village Officer had referred the matter to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar had directed the Village Officer to issue the certificate taking into account the income of the family of the petitioner for the previous year. According to the petitioner, this action of the respondents is unjust and contrary to law. The learned W.P.(c)No.17994/08 3 counsel for the petitioner would submit that Annexure-XVIII(i) of the prospectus itself contains guidelines regarding calculation of income of the family for the purpose of reservation. According to the learned counsel, the term 'income' is defined therein as the regular income actually earned by the family. The petitioner points out that similar guidelines have been the subject matter of decision by this Court in Meerakutty V. State of Kerala [1991(1) KLT 208], in which a Division Bench of this Court held that the Village Officer is competent to issue a certificate for future period and for the purpose of claiming reservation the certificate can be of the income for the year for which admission is sought. Relying on that decision of the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents are bound to accept the income certificate now produced and to grant the petitioner reservation benefits in the matter of admission. The petitioner also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda V. Chairman, JEE and Ors. [ JT 2004(8) SC 267], wherein the Supreme Court has held that admission authorities should not take a technical stand in such matters W.P.(c)No.17994/08 4 and a bona fide mistake has to be overlooked to give admission. The petitioner on the above contentions, seeks the following reliefs. “(i) declare that petitioner is entitled to be included among the candidates under Latin Catholic other than Anglo Indian category for MBBS/BDS admission, 2008. (ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing the 1 st respondent to include petitioner among Latin Catholic other than Anglo Indian for admission to MBBS/BDS course, 2008 under category/community wise list. (iii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing 1 st respondent to keep one seat vacant among Latin Catholic other than Anglo Indian quota for admission to MBBS/BDS course, 2008 till finalisation of the Writ Petition.” 2. The learned Government Pleader stoutly opposes the prayers. According to him, the income for the purpose of reservation can only be the income for the previous year to the date of application. He would submit that no Village Officer can with any amount of certainty give a certificate to a person certifying that his income for the next year would be so much. Therefore, the only practicable way of giving income certificates is to certify the income for the previous year to the date of issue of the certificate. According to the learned W.P.(c)No.17994/08 5 Government Pleader, the very meaning of the word 'certificate', as given in the Law Lexicon of P.Ramanatha Aiyar, is, “ a writing by which an officer or other person bears testimony that a fact has or has not taken place”. Based on the meaning given in the Law Lexicon, the learned Government pleader would argue that a certificate can only be a testimony of the income which has already earned and not the income which may arise in future. He would further submit that the issue as to what is the income to be computed for the purpose of reservation in admissions was not clearly defined at the time when the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was rendered. That issue was set at rest by the Government themselves by issuing a G.O.No.304/2006/RD dated 28.10.2006, wherein the Government themselves had finally decided that when income certificate is issued for the purpose of admission to Medical and Engineering Courses, the income to be computed is the income for the previous financial year prior to the date of application. Since subsequent to the Division Bench decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government themselves had specifically stipulated the mode of issue of income certificates for the W.P.(c)No.17994/08 6 purpose of admissions, the judgment of the Division Bench cannot govern the issue, is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader also brings to my attention the very stringent conditions in the prospectus, whereby it has been specifically stated that the certificates subsequently produced would not be taken into account under any circumstances. He also points out that after obtaining the certificate on 23.2.2008 the petitioner did not take any steps to get the same altered till 24.5.2008 when she filed Ext.P5 application before the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations producing along with it Ext.P4, which itself was obtained only on 24.5.2008. The learned Government Pleader would therefore contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Perhaps going by the Division Bench decision alone, the petitioner would have been entitled to succeed in this writ petition. But unfortunately for the petitioner, the subsequent Government Order referred to by the learned Government Pleader, which specifically stipulated the mode of issue of W.P.(c)No.17994/08 7 income certificates, had been issued by the government laying down that the income certificate shall be on the basis of the income earned by the family during the financial year prior to the date of application. It cannot be said that such a stipulation is arbitrary or unreasonable. On the other hand, I am of opinion that, that stipulation would stand more to reason. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, no Village Officer can with any amount of certainty, issue an income certificate to a party certifying that the income of that party would be so much for the coming year. Even in the case of retired employees, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that he would be earning the only income from his retirement benefits or that his pension would be the same as he earns presently. The employer may revise the pension itself. He can certainly engage himself in some other avocation or business, in which he may earn more income in addition to his pension. Therefore, the more definite way for issuing the income certificate would be to certify the income for the previous year. That only has been laid down by the present Government Order dated 28.10.2006. In view of that Government Order, the Division Bench decision rendered prior W.P.(c)No.17994/08 8 to that Government Order cannot govern the issue. 4. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this Government Order has to be read harmoniously with the Division Bench decision. According to him, the Division Bench decision was after construing the words in a Government Order, which was identical to those in Annexure-XVIII(i) of the prospectus and construing those provisions, the Division Bench held that the words 'real income' mentioned therein could also be the future income for the year in which the admission had to made. I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect also. In view of the vagueness in the matter of issue of income certificate for the purpose of reservation in admissions, the Government itself has issued a Government Order clearing the vagueness in the matter, by definitely saying that the certificate shall be that based on the income for the previous financial year to the date of application. There is no question of harmonious construction of this Government Order with the said Division Bench decision for the purpose of issue of the income certificate. For the purpose of admissions, the State is now governed by the new Government Order. W.P.(c)No.17994/08 9 Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner can succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd