IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 2372 of 2008(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DR. ANSU ANAND A., MOORKATIL HOUSE, POTHY, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 2372 OF 2008 G ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, an Assistant Surgeon was desirous of applying for Post Graduate Medical Entrance, 2008. He obtained application and wanted to claim the benefit of reservation provided for candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. The prospectus required the candidates to produce certificate issued by the Village Officer along with the application. The last date for submitting application was 5/1/2008 and in view of this, petitioner submits that he had to apply without certificate, but however, stated in Ext.P2 covering letter that the application of certificate is pending and that the same will be produced immediately. It is submitted by the petitioner that he applied for a certificate on 3/1/2008 and that the enquiry could not completed and hence the certificate was not issued in WPC 2372/08 :2 : time. However, he got Ext.P3 certificate issued by the Village Officer on 10/1/2008, but the certificate was refused to be accepted by the respondents stating that after the last date, no document could be allowed to be produced. 2. The case was adjourned for the learned Government pleader to obtain instructions. On instructions, learned Government pleader submits that the petitioner had submitted his application leaving page No.5 containing format for certificate for SEBC candidates, blank. It is stated that there was no certificate attached to the application and that the prospectus required the candidates to produce all the certificates along with the application form and that application forms complete in all respects should reach the authority before the last date and time notified. Learned Government pleader also places reliance on the judgment of this court reported in Simi Raj v. Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (1999(3) KLT 773) to sustain his plea that production of community certificate is mandatory. Relying on the judgment of this court in Sainulabdin v. State of Kerala (1995(2) KLT 629) learned Government pleader also WPC 2372/08 :3 : contends that this court will not be justified in issuing directions against the terms of the prospectus. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government pleader. 4. The petitioner relies on the note contained in Ext.P4 and content that service candidates are not required to submit any service related documents along with the application. I cannot accept the contention that the community certificate which is required to be produced by a candidate for admission is a “service related document” exempted by virtue of the note in Ext.P4. It cannot be disputed that production of the certificate is a mandatory requirement of the prospectus and this requirement has been upheld as mandatory, in the aforesaid judgment in Simi Raj v. Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (1999(3) KLT 773). Whatever be the reason, the fact remains that in this case before the last date expired on 5/1/08, petitioner had not produced Ext.P3 community certificate. If that be so, the application was a defective one and there is violation of the mandatory condition of the prospectus. If that be so, the WPC 2372/08 :4 : respondents cannot be faulted for having rejected the petitioner's candidature. I cannot also find fault with the respondents for having not accepted Ext.P3 certificate produced belatedly in view of the conditions in the prospectus requiring production of the certificate before the last date of the application. 5. For these reasons, I am not in a position to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner by directing the respondents to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp