JUDGMENT The petitioners in both these cases, M.P.No.1407/92 and M.P.No.1461/92, were candidates at the Pre-Engg. Test held by the Professional Examinations Board of Madhya Pradesh under the directions of the respondent No.1 and 2 for admission of degree/diploma courses in the Engineering Colleges of the State. The petitioners in both the petitions applied under the category of sons and grand sons of freedom fighters. Both of them were not treated to be falling under the category of sons and grand sons of freedom fighters for the reason that the certificate they had produced of being son or a grandson of a freedom fighter was not in proforma 8.4 annexed to the Rules. The petitioners contend that the prescribed proforma contained the words 'legitimate' son/daughter/wife which were not used by the Collector while issuing the certificate. The Collector had omitted the word legitimate in the certificate. According to the petitioners firstly since the Collector-has to give the certificate and the form was prescribed by the respondents it was for the Collector to have given a correct certificate. Secondly, when a person is certified to be a son or grandson of freedom fighter it has to be presumed unless contrary is proved that the person is and claims to be, a legitimate son or grandson and not an illegitimate one. Despite service of notice the respondents have not chosen to enter appearance and to file return. We have, therefore, to decide this case in absence of a return and in absence of representation on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners have annexed to the petition a copy of the certificate which they had produced. In these certificates which they had produced the candidates have been certified to be grandsons of freedom fighters though the certificates are not strictly in conformity with proforma 8.4 prescribed by the respondents. They are issued by the Government Officers and prima-facie show that the petitioners are grandsons of freedom fighters. The form prescribed by the Rule, are for facilitation of scrutiny of the information supplied by the candidates. They cannot be elevated to the status of mandatory rules for the violation of which a person may be deprived of his admission when he is otherwise qualified. The form prescribed by the Rule, are for facilitation of scrutiny of the information supplied by the candidates. They cannot be elevated to the status of mandatory rules for the violation of which a person may be deprived of his admission when he is otherwise qualified. The purpose of reservation in favour of sons and grand-sons of freedom fighters cannot be allowed to be defeated by hyper technicalities, such as omission to use the word 'legitimate' in the certificates. Whenever it is certified by any Authority, that a particular person is a son or daughter of another person, it has to be presumed, unless otherwise shown, that the certificate relates to legitimate relationship and does not relate to illegitimate sons or daughters. The authority cannot adopt a fault finding hypertechnical attitude in matters of admission to educational institutions trying to keep out students, otherwise eligible for admission, on the basis of hypertechnical defects in their forms and to order verification of the certificates if they have any doubts but they cannot straightway refuse to grant admission by rejecting the certificate out right especially when the certificate is issued by the Collector, who is expected to know what kind of certificate is required for the propose. After all, it is not in the hands of the candidates to get the Collector sign on dotted lines and all that they can do is to bring the prescribed proforma to the notice of the Collector. If at all, there is any deficiency, the Collector issuing the certificate cannot be absolved of having overlooked the requirement of the form prescribed by a Governmental Agency. A candidate cannot be punished by depriving him of his admission because the Collector has not used the correct words prescribed by a form while issuing the certificate. Petition allowed.