Smt. Archana Mishra vs State of U.P.

V.K. Shukla, J.—Brief facts giving rise to present writ petition in brief is that petitioner applied for consideration of her candidature for Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Petitioner claims that she made declaration in her application form that she is from physically handicapped category candidate and at that point of time petitioner possessed certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer on 13.5.1999. Petitioner was called for counselling on 1.6.2004 and name of petitioner was shown at serial No. 16 in the aforementioned list. Final list was published on 15.7.2004 and therein name of petitioner was missing. Petitioner submits that she represented the matter before the authority concerned and when no action was taken then she preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45631 of 2004 (Smt. Archana Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors.). This Court on presentation of the aforementioned writ petition on 29.10.2004 disposed of the aforementioned writ petition asking the authority concerned i.e. Director, State Educational Research and Training Council, Lucknow to decide the claim of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court representation has been moved by the petitioner and alongwith representation petitioner has appended copy of Medical Certificate dated 27.8.2004. Thereafter petitioner was called for verification of original record. Thereafter, claim of the petitioner has been rejected on 31.12.2004 on the ground that last date for submission of application form of Special B.T.C. Course 2004 was 15.3.2004 and as certificate pertaining to the petitioner of being. Physically handicapped was issued on 27.8.2004 as such petitioner would not be treated as Physically Handicapped category and would be treated as General category. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that at the point of time when petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature she had filled up her form as Physically Handicapped category candidate and at that point of time petitioner was in possession of Physically Handicapped certificate dated 13.5.1999 and as said certificate was old one then she obtained new certificate dated 27.8.2004, as such certificate dated 27.8.2004 was nothing but reiteration of earlier status of the petitioner of being Physically Handicapped and thus, view which has been taken by respondents is unsustainable and as candidate with less merit have been selected and sent for training then petitioner is also entitled to be sent for training.

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that from the own showing of the petitioner, her Physically Handicapped certificate is dated 27.8.2004 which is much after the last of submission of application form i.e., 15.3.2004, as such view which has been taken is correct view and no interference be made by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature as Physically Handicapped category. At the point of time she had been in possession of certificate dated 13.5.1999 issued by Chief Medical Officer. This certificate is undisputedly much before 15.3.2004 and petitioner had obtained fresh certificate dated 27.8.2004 which had been produced. By means of the same no new fact has been sought to be brought on record rather the said certificate was reaffirmation of the fact mentioned in the old certificate that petitioner is candidate from Physically Handicapped category.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, has mentioned that in order to avail the benefit of reservations, weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of folding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit observation, depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply, any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in the rejection of candidature. Relevant paragraphs 6 to 11 are being Quoted below:

The appellant has filed a copy of the certificate dated 3.10.2001 issued by Signal Abilekh Karyalaya, Signals Records, Post Bag No. 5, Jabalpur (M.P.), which certifies that Ex-NK Manoranjan Chhanda resident of VPO Larambha District Sambalpur (Orrisa) is suffering from permanent disability. The certificate produced by the appellant on 7.7.2003 was issued by Zilla Sainik Board on 28.6.2003 and in his certificate a mistake had crept in namely in Column No. 3 pertaining to Disabled/killed in war/hostilities," the words "not eligible" were written. This mistake was rectified in the second certificate issued by the Zilla Sainik Board on 16.7.2003 where in Column No. 3 the words "Permanently disabled" were written. The factual position, viz., that the appellant''s father Manoranjan Chhanda was discharged from army on account of permanent disability is not at all disputed by the respondents. Similarly, the correctness of the second certificate issued by the Zilla Sinik Board, Sambalpur, wherein it was mentioned that Ex-N.K. Manoranjan Chhanda had suffered permanent disability is also not disputed. The only ground on which the appellant''s candidature was rejected as that the time of the counselling on 7.7.2003 she failed to produce the certificate to show that she belongs to a reserved category.

The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form as the case may be unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fix. This has Jo be established by producing the necessary certificates/degree or mark-sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts, of a case, there can become relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principals at pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating of submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.

This principle was explained and applied in Charles K. Skaria and Others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and Others, The controversy here related to admission to a post graduate course in medicine. The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or sub-specialty and this benefit could be given only if the candidate''s success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The prospectus provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and other documents should be attached with every application. Three such candidates were given admission who had not attached the certificate of having passed the diploma alongwith their applications. Their admission of post graduate course was set aside by the High Court on the ground that their applications, wherein they claimed the benefit of diploma were liable to be rejected as the requisite certificates had not been attached. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the admission to the candidates had rightly been given as they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of paras 20 to 24 of judgment, where this principle was highlighted are being reproduced below:

20 There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma alongwith the application, but that is secondary. Relation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma, the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor.... Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. 24. It is notorious that his formalists, ritualistic, approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanizes the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much hardship and harassment in administration flows from over-emphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the government and the selection committee rightly treated as directory, (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like marks-lists from universities, why even bail orders from courts and government orders from public offices.

The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI category. She comes from a very humble background, her father was only a Naik in the armed froces. He may not have noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29.6.2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counseling. Those who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been admitted. The view taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust and illegal.

The appellant had qualified in the JEE 2003 but the said academic year is already over. But for this situation the fault lies with the respondents, who adopted a highly technical and rigid attitude and not with the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be given admission UV MBBS course in any of the State medical colleges in the current academic year.

The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. The judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 of the High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to give admission to the appellant in any one of the State Medical colleges forthwith. In case State-seats have already been filled up one extra seat shall be created for her.

Tested on these principles as laid down by Hon''ble the Apex Court, consequently, in the fact of pre-release as it is undisputed fact that petitioner had applied for consideration of his (candidature as Physically Handicapped category candidate and had mad declaration of the said fact in her application form and at that point of time she was already possessed of certificate certifying that she is from Physically Handicapped category, as such in all eventuality her candidature ought to have been considered as Physically-Handicapped category candidate. Subsequent certificate dated 27.8.2004 was nothing new but reiteration of facts qua earlier status of petitioner.

In these circumstances order dated 30/31.12.2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner treating her as Physically Handicapped female category candidate and thereafter in case candidates from petitioner''s category with less merit have already been sent for training then immediate steps be undertaken for sending the petitioner also for training.

With the above direction present writ petition is allowed and disposed of.