Anjum Ara vs State of J. and K. and Others

Mazhar Ali Shah, J.—The petitioner in pursuance of Advertisement Notice No.2/MBBS/85 dated 26-6-1985 applied for being considered

for admission to Medical College. Srinagar. The petitioner appeared in the pre-entrance examination and viva voce and obtained. 44.31 points

both in the written and viva voce test held by the Medical College, Selection, Committee. The only claim made in this petition is based on the

ground that the petitioner claims consideration of her admission in the category of ""Backward Area"". In accordance with the Notification, she

submitted her Form duly filled in indicating therein in column No. 7 of the Application Form for selection to MBBS/BDS Course contains the

following entry:--

Do you belong to any reserved category? If so name the category in block letters and attach certificate from competent authority.

It is not disputed that while the said Application Form was submitted on July 22, 1985, the Certificate of belonging to 'Backward Area' or its copy

was not attached with the Form, as the same is alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner by Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar on July

29, 1985. It is further alleged that at the time when petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee, two clerks who were sitting outside the

interview room and were responsible for collection of original certificates from the candidates in terms of Clause 11 of the Advertisement Notice,

to whom the petitioner handed over the original Certificate issued by Deputy Commissioner of her belonging to 'Backward Area'. The clerks in

their turn sent those certificates of I which the copies were enclosed with the form as well as the Certificate in question of Backward Area to the

Selection Committee. The members of the selection Committee perused the Certificates, interviewed the petitioner and later on the certificates

were returned to her. The petitioner, therefore, claimed her admission under SRO 272 dt. July 3, 1982 belonging to the Backward Area and

covered by the categories mentioned therein. It is pointed out that the interviews were held on Sept. 22, 1985, earlier to which there was exchange

of correspondence between the Member-Secretary of the Selection Committee and the petitioner seeking clarification in respect of the name of the

father of the petitioner by a letter issued on 5-8-1985. The said letter does not contain any querry with respect to the product ion of Backward

Area Certificate or any other defect in the form. This is also stated that on account of the non-availability of the Tehsildar in his office, the petitioner

with a view to ensure that she should not go by default approached the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar for the grant of requisite Certificate in

terms of SRO272 dt. 3-7-1982, who was pleased to grant the Certificate on July 29, 1985. On the declaration of the result in the local

newspapers, since the petitioner has not been granted admission in the Backward Area category, in which she sought admission, she made

enquiries and on information received, she came to know that in Backward Area category, candidates much lower in merit on the points obtained

were admitted, the last one being respondent 4, who obtained 29.32 points. The petitioner has been deprived of her right to get the admission

giving rise to the present petition.

The petition is contested by the respondents. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has raised the pure questions of fact, which cannot be

determined by way of writ petition, that no fundamental right or legal right of the petitioner has been violated. Reliance is also placed on a decision

of this Court in Writ Petn. No. 98 of 1986 (Mohd Isaq Naigoo v. State) regarding the object of filing the certified copies of the Certificates along

with the application form specially when the admission is sought on the basis of the reserved category. The department has also conducted

enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the certificate, which accordingly proved as not genuine. It is also submitted that the production of a

Certificate to claim selection on the basis of reserved category after the interviews are concluded is not tenable. The production of the certificate of

the Backward Area is also denied and also that the Certificate produced with the petition indicates that the same is not on the prescribed form,

thus petitioner was not entitled to be selected in the reserved category and hence her merits in the general category can only be considered

according to which she does not stand to be selected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has very specifically mentioned in Col. 7 of the form that she claims

admission in the reserved category of Backward Area. This is also submitted that the copy of the Certificate could not be filed at the time when the

form was submitted, as the same was not issued till that date and was only issued on July 29, 1985, however, she produced the Certificate in

original before the Clerks concerned at the time of interview, which was held on September 22, 1985 and the same was before the Committee at

the time when she was interviewed. It is further pointed out that in accordance with SRO 272 dt. July 3, 1982, the said certificate could not be

obtained from Tehsildar, as he was not available during the days when the Certificate was required to be obtained and because the last date was

going to expire she submitted the form without the said Certificate and even thereafter the same has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, who

is a higher authority than the Tehsildar and thus the refusal of consideration of the petitioner in the reserved category deprives the petitioner of her

fundamental right to get admission in the Medical College, Learned counsel for the petitioner also attacked the cancellation of the Cetificate vide

order of the Deputy Commissioner reproduced in the counter of the Respondents issued on Nov. 30, 1985 to the Additional Secretary to the

Government, General Department, which was done behind her back, for which no investigation was either made nor she was intimated of any

infirmity in the Certificate by the said authority. About the issuance of Certificate by a higher authority than the Tehsildar, reliance is placed on an

order passed in C.M.P. No. 69 of 1984 by this court in the case of Miss Sonia Niyyarv. State of J. and K.

On hearing the rival arguments and perusal of the record with a Notification in hand inviting applications vide Advertisement Notice dt. June 26,

1985,1 am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner to grant her admission in the reserved category falls short of the requirement of the

Notification Clauses 8 and 9 of which run as follows : --

Application Forms received-

(a) after the prescribed date shall not be entertained;

(b) found incomplete in any material proof shall be rejected without any notice;

(c) late due to any postal delay shall not be entertained;

9-- Candidates who claim consideration for selection to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course on the basis of their belonging to any of the following

categories as mentioned in SRO 272dt. 3rdJuly, 1982 should attach with their application forms, certificates strictly in the prescribed form issued

by the competent authority in support of their claim. The authorities competent to issue certificate are indicated below against each category.

It is provided that in Clause 8(a), that all Application Forms received after the prescribed date, Sub-Clause (b) found incomplete in any material

proof shall be rejected without any notice. Similarly by Clause 9, it is incumbent on a candidate applying for admission in the reserved category that

they should attach with their application forms, certificates strictly in the prescribed from issued by the competent authority. Further reading the

above two clauses, Clause 10 of the Notification provides that the attested copies of the Certificates should be attached with the application form.

Sub-Clause (vi) runs as under: --

(vi) Certificate in support of claim of belonging to any reserved category mentioned in Clause (9).

Clause 11 provides that Original Certificate must be shown at the time of interview.

Without speculating on the point argued regarding issuance of a Certificate by the Deputy Commissioner instead of Tehsildar, production of

Certificate at the time of interview before the Interview Committee and the subsequent cancellation of the Certificate issued of Backward Area by

the Deputy Commissioner on account of the disputed position, I propose to decide the petition on the ground of non-fulfilment of the necessary

condition at the time of submitting the Application Form by the petitioner to claim admission in the reserved category. It is cardinal rule of law that

a person claiming exemption or reservation should by cogent evidence in accordance with the requirement of Advertisement attach with his

application form the requisite Certificate, failing which in terms of Advertisement the claim for admission in the reserved category cannot be

entertained. A plain reading of Sub-Clause (b) of Clause 8 and Clause 9 of the Advertisement indicates that in terms of Clause 10 of the Notice

read with Clause 8 and 9, the certified copy of the Certificate of the Backward Area should be attached with the Application Form. Merely by

indicating in Clause 7 of the Form that a candidate gives an answer in affirmative signifying that she claims admission in the reserved category of

Backward Area, unless the same is accompanied with the Certified copy of the requisite certificate, she has no right to be considered for admission

in the said category. Apart from the dispute that the original certificate was produced before the Committee at the time of interview it could not

have even been admissible on the very principle that if the base on the basis of which the original certificate is needed is not available in the form

within the prescribed time, the production of the original will not fulfill the requirement of the Advertisement, hence for the fault of the petitioner to

put up the certified copy of the certificate with the application form disentitles her to get her consideration in the reserved category. The very object

of the condition imposed in the application form will be frustrated and defeated if without any provision to the effect of condonation of rectification

of non-filing of certificate at the time of filing the application will not fulfill the mandatory requirement of the Advertisement Notice and will become

redundant (sic). Calling the reserved category cetificates and production of their attested copies along with the form gives an opportunity to the

Selection Committee to examine the genuineness and authenticity of such Certificates to grant admission in the reserved category to a candidate

and to allot seats in accordance with the criteria laid down. In the instant case on a perusal of the record pertaining to the application of the

petitioner and even on her admission, it transpires that with the application form the certified copy of the certificate of claiming admission in the

reserved category was not attached even when the querry was made to ascertain the paternity of the petitioner by issuing a letter on 5-8-1985, the

petitioner failed to submit the requisite certificate, which was. admittedly available with her at that time (which) disentitles her to get the

consideration in the reserved category.

Thus on the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is a purpose behind the requirement of attaching the certified copy of the

Certificate in the Application Form to getcoasideralion in reserved category (and) in the absence of such a Certificate, if the authprities permit at a

later stage the production of such Certificates it will result in production of frivolous Certificates multiplying the chances of enquiries and litigation,

hence on the failure of the petitioner to attach the certified copy of the required Certificate in support of the entry in Col. 7 of the Form, no right

vested in her to get the consideration for admission in the reserved category. Viewed thus 1 find no substance in the petition to show any

indulgence for the grant of relief to the petitioner.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed on the sole ground with no order as to costs. It also disposes of C.M.P. No. 258

of 1986.