Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed this original petition with a complaint of being denied a seat in the M.B.B.S. course in the quota reserved for Ezhavas. Petitioner throws the blame for this denial on the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to invitation of applications for the M.B.B.S. course 1988, the petitioner applied for a seat. The form of application requires the candidate to state in its column 11 as to whether he claims reservation "under socially and educationally backward community as per G.O. (P) 208/66 dated 2-5-1966". The candidate is asked to write yes or no. If the answer is yes he is also expected to write the category and community. It is with reference to this column that the applications for admission are considered. In the petitioner's application, a copy of which is Ext. R2 (a), the petitioner definitely answered no, there by meaning that he did not claim reservation as belonging to a socially and educationally backward community. In view of this negative answer the petitioner's case was considered only in the merit quota and since he did not qualify in that quota, he did not get a seat. 2. It is despite his definite negative answer to column 11 of Ext. R2 (a) namely that he did not claim a seat reserved for the socially and educationally backward communities that the petitioner now contends that he has been wrongly denied a seat in the quota reserved for Ezhavas in the course. 3. The petitioner has filed this original petition with the following allegations. There are 49 seats reserved for Ezhavas in the M.B.B.S. course. Petitioners an Ezhava. As per the Government orders Exts.P2, P8 and P9 the income of the family of an applicant claiming a seat in the quota reserved for socially and educationally backward communities should not exceed Rs. 20,000/- per annum. In computing the income of persons drawing salary, the dearness allowance and the house rent allowance are to be excluded from the calculation. When the petitioner applied for a seat in the M.B.B.S. course pursuant to the notification Ext. P1 issued by the first respondent, he made an application to the 3rd respondent Village Officer to issue the necessary certificate regarding income. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his father is a retired primary school teacher, who is drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 320/- only. P1 issued by the first respondent, he made an application to the 3rd respondent Village Officer to issue the necessary certificate regarding income. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his father is a retired primary school teacher, who is drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 320/- only. His mother is slower primary school teacher drawings basic salary of Rs. 1,160/- per month. The total income of the family, that is of the parents, plus the income from the agricultural lands aggregates only Rs. 18,110/-, as can be seen from Ext.P3, the application for issue of the income certificate. The fact that the pension of the petitioner's father and the basic salary of petitioner's mother are only in the amounts mentioned. earlier is sought to be proved with reference to Exts. P4 and P5. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent refused to issue a certificate in the manner prayed for in Ext. P3, that is, at less than Rs. 20,000/-. On the other hand he computed the petitioner's father's income at Rs. 6,688/- per year including therein the dearness allowance drawn by him. Petitioner's mother's annual income was also computed as Rs. 19,176/- taking into account the dearness and the house rent allowances drawn by her. The result was the aggregate income of the petitioner's parents was computed at Rs. 26,864/- including an amount of Rs. 400/- as income from land. Out of this Rs. 2,000/- was deducted, as the family had more than three children and the income certificate was issued for an amount of Rs. 24,864/- ie. in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. Ext.P6 is a copy of the income certificate which is appended to the petitioner's application. The result was the petitioner did not qualify for a seat in the Ezhava quota for the socially and educationally backward communities. Soon after making the application for admission the petitioner's father filed an appeal before the District Collector, Malappuram against the wrongful issue of the certificate by the 3rd respondent Village Officer. A copy of that appeal is Ext.P7. 4. Petitioner wrote the entrance test and was ranked 1067. Candidates belonging to Ezhava community upto rank No. 1337 were allotted seats in the reservation quota. As a matter of fact there are 17 Ezhavas who ranked below the petitioner in the entrance test who have been admitted in the reservation quota. A copy of that appeal is Ext.P7. 4. Petitioner wrote the entrance test and was ranked 1067. Candidates belonging to Ezhava community upto rank No. 1337 were allotted seats in the reservation quota. As a matter of fact there are 17 Ezhavas who ranked below the petitioner in the entrance test who have been admitted in the reservation quota. The petitioner therefore, states that he has been wrongly denied admission in the Ezhava quota only because of the wrong certificate issued by the Village Officer, the certificate being wrong for the reason that he took into account the dearness allowance and the house rent allowance in computing the family income against the clear mandate of the Government orders Exts. P2, P8 and P9. Petitioner has therefore, filed this original petition, inter alia challenging the income certificate issued by the 3rd respondent and praying for a direction to the respondents that he should be admitted in one of the seats reserved for candidates belonging to the Ezhava community. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits. The first respondent has appended to his counter affidavit Ext.R1 (a) the communication from the District Collector, Malappuram to Government in which he states that the income certificate issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent was wrong. He points out that the income of the petitioner's family should be computed at Rs. 16,560/- that is much below Rs. 20,000/-. In other words Ext.Rl (a) conclusively establishes that the income certificate Ext.P6 issued by the Village Officer was not in accordance with Exts.P2, P8 and P9. The second respondent namely the Director of Medical Education has filed a separate counter affidavit in which he points out that despite all that is stated by the petitioner he is not entitled to a seat in the Ezhava quota. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not choose to apply for a seat in that quota having filled up column 11 of the form of application with a clear negative that he was not claiming a seat in the quota reserved for socially and educationally backward communities. The selection committee has considered the matter with reference to the claims made for reservation in the application forms and when the petitioner himself did not claim a seat in that quota there was no question of the respondents granting him a seat in that quota. The selection committee has considered the matter with reference to the claims made for reservation in the application forms and when the petitioner himself did not claim a seat in that quota there was no question of the respondents granting him a seat in that quota. The petitioner's reply to this is that he filled up column 11 in the manner done only because of the wrong income certificate issued to him. 6. The first prayer made in the original petition for relief in respect of the income certificate does not require consideration in view of Ext.Rl (a) produced by the respondents. It shows clearly that the income certificate Ext.P6 issued to the petitioner is erroneous. It only requires to be stated that the correct income of the petitioner's family is Rs. 16,560/- and not Rs. 24,864/- as mentioned in Ext.P6. 7. The next question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that he is eligible for a seat in the quota reserved for Ezhavas. The form of application is very clear, and requires the candidate to state in column H whether he claims a seat reserved for socially and educationally backward communities. Para 11 of the instructions to candidates requires them to read the instructions carefully and then fill up the application form. It is with reference to the entry in column 11 that the claim of any candidate for a seat in the reservation quota is considered. It is pointed out by the respondents that since the applications are considered with reference to the entry in this column and since the petitioner had answered 'No' to the question whether he claimed a seat reserved for socially and educationally backward communities, the question of granting him a seat in that quota did not arise, and his application was considered only for the merit quota. 8. The application form is comprehensive and requires the candidate to put forward all his claims clearly. When the candidate himself has not claimed that he should be allotted a seat in the quota reserved for Ezhavas, there is no question of the selection committee considering his claim for a seat in that category. It is for the candidate himself to claim all that he wants and he cannot expect the selection committee to go behind the application and grant a relief which he himself does not choose to claim. 9. It is for the candidate himself to claim all that he wants and he cannot expect the selection committee to go behind the application and grant a relief which he himself does not choose to claim. 9. It will be improper for the selection committee to go behind what is stated in the application, and grant benefits which the candidates themselves have not chosen to claim. Any such power in the selection committee will lead to arbitrariness as also uncertainty in the selection process. It will even lead to prolonged delay in the completion of the admissions with belated claims and litigations. It is in public interest that the selection of candidates to such courses is done with all expedition. If the selection committee is to entertain claims contrary to, or de hors, what is stated in the application itself, there will be no limit to which they will be bound to go and they will have to reckon with all sorts of claims raised by candidates on second thoughts or otherwise leading to delay and uncertainty in the selection process. It is in the interests of the candidates themselves that they are pinned down to what is stated in the application and the selection made only with reference to what is stated therein. Chaos and confusion will result if the applications are not to be treated as final as to what is contained therein, and candidates are permitted to set up further claims as the selection process goes on. What the petitioner seeks is the recognition of a power in the selection committee to overlook his negative answer in column 11 and confer a reserved Ezhava seat on him. This is not possible; recognition of any such power will be against public interest. 10. The petitioner never brought to the notice of the selection committee that the income certificate issued to him was erroneous. Nothing prevented him from claiming seat in the quota, stating that the income certificate was erroneous and that an appeal has been filed before the District Collector. The petitioner did not however, choose to avail of such a course. He cannot now return round and give the go by to what is stated in the application. 11. The original petition throws the entire blame on the respondents for not selecting the petitioner in a reservation seat. The petitioner did not however, choose to avail of such a course. He cannot now return round and give the go by to what is stated in the application. 11. The original petition throws the entire blame on the respondents for not selecting the petitioner in a reservation seat. But the original petition omitted to state that the petitioner himself did not claim a seat in that quota. 12. The case of the petitioner for a seat in the reservation quota has therefore, to fail. May be the petitioner was prompted to say'no' to column 11 of the from of application because of the income certificate issued by the 3rd respondent. But the larger public interest of certainty and expedition in such matters should override the hardship, if any, to the petitioner. Public interest will be subserved only by limiting the scrutiny by the selection committee to what is contained and claimed in the application. This is the view which I have taken in a similar case relating to admission to the post graduate course in the tutors' quota. I have dealt with the matter in Para.3 of the judgment in O.P. No. 5581/88. The original petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.