AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivaraj Patil, J.—The Case of the Petitioner as can be gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and briefly stated, is as
follows:
The Petitioner belongs to the Community of Konda Reddy which is a scheduled Tribe according to the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order,
1950. She was so described as Konda Reddy in the S.S.L.C. book. Her mother had been given a community certificate by the Tahsildar, Mettur
Dam as early as on 12.9.1978 and she is working as an Organiser in the Nutritious Noon Meal Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu from
1984. Some of the other relatives of the petitioner are also described as Konda Reddis. She studied the 12th Standard in the Nirmala Higher
Secondary School, Kolathur and applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course. She was selected for the said course. On 13.6.1995 the second
respondent Selection Committee had written a letter to the petitioner directing her to produce a community certificate from the Revenue Divisional
Officer on or before 26.6.1995.
The petitioner had applied as early as on 18.10.1994 to the R.D.O., the third respondent herein, to issue a community certificate, but in the
R.D.O., did not make enquiries and did not issue certificate. Whenever the father of the petitioner visited him he was informed that the matter was
being looked into. Since the petitioner was running the risk of losing her selection to the M.B.B.S. course she was obliged to file W.P. No. 8322
of 1995 seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the R.D.O. to issue community certificate pursuant to her application dated 18.10.1994. The said
writ petition was allowed on 30.6.1995 with a direction to the third respondents to dispose of the petitioner''s application within two weeks.
Inspite of service of copy of the order, the third respondent has not disposed of the application of the petitioner filed for issue of community
certificate. Having regard to the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner there should have been no delay or difficulty in issuing the
community certificate.
In the circumstances, the petitioner, having no other alternative or efficacious remedy, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to join the first respondent college pursuant to the selection and allotment, on the
grounds, viz.
...i. The S.S.L.C. Book, the community certificate already issued by the competent officer, and other records such as community certificates issued
to her parents were sufficient to establish her community;
ii. If the Revenue authorities were to take time for issue the community certificate, candidates selected provisionally should have been admitted
subject to further verification as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in several cases;
iii. Inspite of the direction, the third respondent did not dispose of the application filed for issue of community certificate; and
iv. The petitioner, even though has been selected for the M.B.B.S. degree course, cannot be denied the benefit forwant of community certificate
from the third respondent for no fault of her.
The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had applied for M.B.B.S.
degree curse for 1995-96 session under the Scheduled Tribe reservation quota she did not submit the community certificate obtained from the
R.D.O. along with the application as required by clause 9 of the Prospectus; she was intimated by the second respondent, vide his proceeding No.
11516/SC/UG/95 dated 13.6.1995 informing that she had not annexed the requisite community certificate along with the application dated
3.6.1995, and instructed her to produce the same, and to collect the intimation letter on or before 26.6.1995; since the petitioner failed to produce
to requisite certificate on or before 26.6.1995 the next candidate in the scheduled Tribe quota, one Miss K. Kavitha with 253.33 marks was
considered and selected she has joined the course on 4.7.95.
It is the further case of the respondent that the letter dated 20.6.1995 of the petitioner seeking extension of time for a period of 15 days was not
considered in view of the clear instructions in the Prospectus as follows:
Request for extension of time for submission of documents called for after the prescribed date and time at the Selection Committee Office will not
be entertained"".
In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, the second respondent has prayed for dismissed of the writ petition.
Mr. S. Duraisamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that having regard to the records, it was amply established that the petitioner
belonged to Scheduled Tribe, inasmuch as in her S.S.L.C. book it is an recorded, even the certificates given to her close relatives including her
mother that they belong to Konda Reddy long back, could have been accepted; the best efforts made by the petitioner even 8 months before her
selection to M.B.B.S. courses to get a community certificate from the third respondent were in vain; and added to this the petitioner did file Writ
Petition No. 8322 of 1995 seeking a mandamus to the third respondent to issue the community certificate which was allowed on 30.6.1995. The
third respondent inspite of the direction to dispose of the application within two weeks did not do so. The petitioner cannot be put to difficulty for
no fault of her, and she cannot be denied admission when she was selected on merits in the Scheduled Tribe category. In a matter like this the
authorities should have admitted the petitioner provisionally subject to further verification as per directions and guidelines given by the Supreme
Court in the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and another, . He drew my attention in particular
to paragraphs 10, 14 and 15 of the said judgment.
On the other hand, Mrs. Saraswathi Prasad, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner failed to produce the
community certificate from the R.D.O. as required along with the application made for admission on 3.6.1995; she did not produce the community
certificate on or before 26.6.1995 as directed by the second respondent - the Selection Committee. Hence the seat was allotted to the next
candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe on the basis of merit and the candidate Miss. K. Kavitha has already joined the course on 4.7.1995; the
request of the petitioner for extension of time by 15 days more, vide her letter dated 20.6.1995 was not considered as such a request for extension
of time could not be entertained after the prescribed date for submission of documents by the selection committee.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 the averements made by the petitioner with regard to the community certificate issued to
her mother and other relatives is not denied. So also about the community mentioned in her S.S.L.C. book. It is clear from the counter affidavit
filed that although the petitioner did not produce the community certificate from the R DO. along with the application on 3.6.1995 she was granted
time to produce the community certificate on or before 26.6.1995 . The petitioner by her lettter dated 20.6.1995 sought for extension of time to
produce the community certificate giving he details, within the last date fixed for producing the community certificate i.e. 26.6.1995 by the selection
committee.
The petitioner applied for the community certificate to the R.D.O. as early as on 18.10.1994. Almost 8 months earlier, but the R.D.O. did not
take steps or issue the certificate. Under the circumstances the petitioner even filed Writ Petition 8322 of 1995 seeking a Writ of mandamus to*
the third respondent to issue community certificate which was allowed on 30.6.1995 directing the third respondent to dispose of the application of
the petitioner made for issue of community certificate within two weeks. Inspite of the said direction also, the third respondent did not pass orders
on the application for issue of community certificate. Thus the petitioner did not spare any efforts. She did everything possible. Under the
circumstances, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri
and another, helps the petitioner.
Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads thus:-
In case of any delay in finalishing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to
an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf of appointed on the
basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-
official, and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee
In the same judgment, in paragraphs 14 and 15 the Supreme Court has stated as to how the cases of the persons should be dealt in case such
certificates obtained are found to be false. In the light of what is stated in the Supreme Court judgment aforementioned, the petitioner ought to have
been permitteed to joint the first respondent college provisionally subject to further verification.
The contention of the respondent No. 2 that the request of the petitioner for extension of time to produce the community certificate made on
20.6.1995 was not considered in view of the instructions in the prospectus that the request for extension of time for submission documents called
for after the prescribed date and time at the selection committee office would not be entertained is untenable. From the counter affidavit filed, it is
clear that the petitioner was granted time to produce the certificate on or before 26.6.1995, and the application for extension was made before the
expiry of that date. Hence the said contention of the respondent No. 2 in this regard is to be rejected. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the
petitioner is entitled to succeed.
In the result, I pass the following order:
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to permit the petitioner to join the first respondent college in the first year M.B.B.S. degree course
provisionally, pursuant to her selection for the academic year 1995-96 itself, on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an
affidavit duly sworn by the parent, subject to the result of the application made by the petitioner to the third respondent on 18.10.1994. In mis
regard the third respondent has to dispose of the said application as already directed by the order of this Court in W.P. No. 8322 of 1995 without
any further loss of time, it is not already disposed of;
iii. The petitioner shall be permitted to take the examinations only after she completes the course and fulfills the minimum requirements of
attendance; and
iv. No costs.