Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 243 (KAR)

RAVISHANKAR NAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1977-12-09

K.S.PUTTASWAMY

body1977
( 1 ) SHRI Ravishankar Naik who claims to be a member of a Scheduled tribe called 'marati' in the District of South Kanara, was an applicant for a seat to the First Year MBBS Course in the Government Medical colleges in the State of Karnataka regulated by the Karnataka Medical colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to aa 'the 1977 Rules' ). In the Pre-University examination, that being the qualifying examination/subjects, he has secured 466 marks in the optional subjects or 77. 7 per cent and he is the top scorer in the category of scheduled Tribes. After interviewing the petitioner on 1-8-77 the Selection committee has rejected his application holding 'no certification from the Tahsildar', 'caste differs from ST List'. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the said action of the Selection Committee as infringing Art. 14 of the constitution. ( 2 ) IN the Statement of Objections filed, the only justification sought by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that the relevant certificate certifying that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled 1 ribe is not signed or issued by one of the authorities that is competent to issue the same. No where in the Statement of objections, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have sought to justify the rejection of the application of the petitioner on -the ground that "the caste differs from ST List". At the hearing of the writ petition also, Shri. B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Government pleader, did not seek to justify the rejection of the application of the petitioner on that ground. In my view, the second ground given by the selection Committee is manifestly wrong and unjustified. ( 3 ) AN applicant seeking admission to the Government Medical colleges has to make his application in a printed Form prescribed and supplied by the Government on payment of a price of Rs. 3. Column no. 3 under heading 'general' and Column No. 15 (iv) under the heading 'other information' of the Application that have a bearing on the determination of the question reads thus : -"3 (a) Nationality : (b) State whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward tribe only. (Certificate of the Director of Social Welfare or District Social Welfare officer should be attached ). 15. (Certificate of the Director of Social Welfare or District Social Welfare officer should be attached ). 15. Enclose the following attested copleal of certificates and state having done so : - (iv) Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Tribe certificate from the Director, Social Welfare or District Social Welfare officer only". According to the said columns, it is open to a candidate to produce a certificate issued by the Director of Social Welfare or District Social welfare Officer Evidently in compliance with the requirements of the said clause, the petitioner approached the District Social Welfare Officer, south Kanara, Mnagalore, who, I presume, after making necessary enquiries in that behalf has certified at the appropriate form and place appended to the application that he is a member of the Scheduled Tribe recognised by the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. At this stage, it is convenient to set out the relevant portion of the certificate which reads thus :- "form G form of certificate to be produced by a candidate belonging to scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in support of his claim. Certificate this is to certify that Shri K. Ravishankar Naik, son of K. Ven- kappa, Town: Puttur in District Division Dakshina Kannada of the state Karnataka belongs to the Marati Caste which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under: the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 2. Shri K. Ravishankar Naik and or family ordinarily resides in town Puttur of D. K. District Division of the State of Karnataka. Mangalore: Sd/- 1-7-1977 Dist Social Welfare Officer, S. Kanara,, Mangalore. ''without examining the 'truth or otherwise of the said certificate issued by the Dist Social Welfare Officer and 'taking the view that the said certificate should have been issued by one of the authorities designated in the same form or in the order of the Govt bearing No. DPAR 1 SBC 77 dt. 4-3-1977, the Selection Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner, the correctness of which is challenged by him before me. ( 4 ) IN para 7 of the Govt Order No. DPAR 1 SBC 77 dt. 4-3-1977 providing for the classification of Backward Classes for purposes of reservation of appointments and posts under Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution and the form appended to the said order, provides a list of authorities empowered to issue certificates of verification. ( 4 ) IN para 7 of the Govt Order No. DPAR 1 SBC 77 dt. 4-3-1977 providing for the classification of Backward Classes for purposes of reservation of appointments and posts under Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution and the form appended to the said order, provides a list of authorities empowered to issue certificates of verification. For reasons that are difficult to comprehend but with which I am not concerned, the District social Welfare Officer is not shown as one of the authorities empowered to issue the certificate of verification. Govt in its Order No. HMA 3 msf 77 dt. 1-7-1977 has inter clia amended column No. 3 of the 'form' of the appliction to be made for admission to Medical Colleges for the academic year 1977-78. But in the printed application form supplied to the petitioner, the same has not been incorporated calling his attention to the amendment effected in the order dt. 1-7-1977, of the Government. ( 5 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has also produced a certificate dt. 17-9-1977 (Ext. F) issued by the Asst Cornmr, Puttur, S. Kanara, certifying as to what has been certified by the District Social Welfare officer, S. Kanara Dist. I prefer to rest my decision on the certificate issued by the Dist Social Welfare Officer. I do not therefore propose to refer to this certificate and deal with the same. ( 6 ) SHRI M. Rarna Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the certificate issued by the Dist Social Welfare Officer was a valid certificate and the rejection of his client's application was illegal and was not permissible applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel. On the other hand, Shri B. B. Mandappa, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 maintained that the Dist Social Welfare Officer was not one of the authorities empowered to issue the certificate and therefore the action of the Selection Committee rejecting the application of the petitioner was valid. ( 7 ) IN Form 'g' of the application Form (Page 14) and in Form-1, appendix IV (Forms) appended to Govt Order No. DPAR 1 SBC 77 dt. 4th March, 1977 the language of which is identica,!, it is stated as under :" List of authorities empowered to issue certificate of verifications:-1. Dist Magistrate/addl Dist Magistrate/deputy Commr. Addl Deputy Commr/sub-Divl Magistrate/taluka Magistrate Executive magistrate Asst Commissioner. 1. 4th March, 1977 the language of which is identica,!, it is stated as under :" List of authorities empowered to issue certificate of verifications:-1. Dist Magistrate/addl Dist Magistrate/deputy Commr. Addl Deputy Commr/sub-Divl Magistrate/taluka Magistrate Executive magistrate Asst Commissioner. 1. Not below the rank of I Class Stipendiary Magistrate. 2. Revenue Officers not below the rank of Tahsildar. 3. Sub-Divl Officer of the area where the candidate and/or his family normally resides. " ( 8 ) IN my view, the above provision does not say that the Officers specified are the one and the only Officers that are empowered to issue certificates and that centificates issued by equally or more responsible officers of Govt like the Director of Social Welfare or the Dist Social welfare Officer cannot be acted upon by the Selection Commitee. By empowering certain Officers specified therein, it appears to me that govt never intended or directed that a certificate issued by Dist Social welfare Officer should be totally excluded from consideration and acceptance. It cannot be said that a Dist Social Welfare Officer of the Govt is not a responsible Officer of the Govt. Looking at the hierarchy of Officers like the Sub-Divl Magistrate, Taluka Magistrate and Tahsildars, one can confidently say that a Dist Social Welfare Officer is a responsible officer and his certificate cannot be rejected solely on 'the ground that in the "list of authorities empowered to issue certificate", the said Officer is not specifically mentioned. Whether the Dist Social Welfare Officer should be specifically included or not in the "list of authorities empowered to issue certificates" of verification is a matter exclusively for the Govt to decide. The object of the production of a certificate before the Selection Committee is not an empty formality. Its object is that a responsible Officer is required to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim of an applicant and assist the Selection Committee to determine the same and the Selection Committee is not expected to reject the claim of an otherwise deserving candidate paying homage to the form and the designation of the Officer. I, therefore, hold that it was permissible for the Selection Committee to act and rely on the certificate issued by the Dist Social Welfare Officer if there was no O'ther compelling reason on which it could have refused to act. I, therefore, hold that it was permissible for the Selection Committee to act and rely on the certificate issued by the Dist Social Welfare Officer if there was no O'ther compelling reason on which it could have refused to act. In my view, the Selection committee by refusing to act on the certificate issued by the Dist social Welfare Officer has acted arbitrarily and has committed a manifest illegality resulting in grave failure of justice to the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the printed application form supplied to the petitioner, it is specifically stated in sub-clause (b) of Column No. 3 and sub-clause (iv) of column No. 15 that he can produce a certificate issued by the Dist Social welfare Officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has acted on the said provisions. In my view, it was not open to the Selection Committee to turn round and say that he should have produced a certificate issued by any one of the authorities mentioned in the "list of authorities empowered to issue certificates". It is not open to the Selection Committee to take advantage of its own mistake. On the facts of this case, I hold that the rule of equitable estoppel should be applied and the Selection Authority precluded from contending to the contrary and to the detriment of the petitioner. ( 10 ) SHRI M. Rama Bhat, learned Counsel, urged that Shri Dinakar naik and Smit. Ramakka alias Balakka had also produced similar certificates and the Selection Committee has accepted the said certificates and acted upon 'them, while it has refused to accept and act in the case of the petitioner. Assuming that the Selection Committee had committed a wrong in the cases of Shri Dinakar Naik and Smit. Ramakka alilas balakka, the petitioner cannot contend that he has acquired a right for committing such a wrong, and ask this Court to issue a Mandamus on that score in his favour. In the view I have taken, I do not consider it necessary to record a finding on the controversy between the parties on this issue. ( 11 ) AS I have held that the certificate issued by the Dist Social welfare Officer was valid, the petitioner having regard to this merit with no other disqualification was entitled for a seat in the Govt Medical colleges for the year 1977-78. ( 11 ) AS I have held that the certificate issued by the Dist Social welfare Officer was valid, the petitioner having regard to this merit with no other disqualification was entitled for a seat in the Govt Medical colleges for the year 1977-78. The petitioner being the most meritorious candidate in the category of Scheduled Tribe, was entitled for a seat in preference to respondent-3 who is stated to be the least meritorious in the category of Scheduled Tribes. I, therefore, direct the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide a seat to the petitioner for the First Year MBBS in the Govt Medical colleges for the academic year 1977-78, if necessary by unseating respondent-3. I make it clear that my order does not prevent the authorities to accommodate the petitioner without disturbing respondent-3 by taking such steps as are necessary in that behalf. ( 12 ) RULE made absolute. Petitioner is entitled to his costs from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. ( 13 ) ANY delay in the issue of the order/writ would be harmful to the interests of the petitioners. I therefore, direct the issue of the order/writ within three days from this day. --- *** --- .