Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment in O.P.No.24015 of 2002. The appellants are respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition and the respondent is the petitioner in the original petition. 2. The respondents was an applicant for the Entrance Examination, 2002 for admission to various professional Courses. In the application the respondent claimed special reservation under Ex-servicemen quota. He did not claim special reservation under any other quota. While publishing the results the respondent was included in the Ex-servicemen quota. However during the counseling the respondent requested that he may be considered in the quota for Dependant of Defence personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action. Alleging that the said oral request was not considered by the authorities concerned the respondent filed the Original Petition praying for a declaration that being the son of a disability pensioner in Indian Army he is eligible to claim the quota reserved for Dependant of Defence Personnal, Killed/Missing/ Disabled in action in the Entrance Examination conducted by the first respondent for the year 2002. It was also prayed for a direction to the first respondent to consider his claim in the light of Ext.P2 certificate and permit him to claim the quota reserved for Dependant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action. 3. The first respondent in the Original Petition the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayers in the Original petition. According to the first respondent in the Original Petition, in as much as the writ petitioner did not claim the special reservation for Dependant of Defence Personnel, killed/Missing/Disabled in action while submitting the application, he was not entitled to be considered under that quota. 4. The learned single Judge closed the Original Petition with a direction that the writ petitioner may be given admission to the vacancy earmarked for the category. Against the said judgment this appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.Rajendran appearing for the respondent. 6. It is not disputed that in the application submitted by the respondent he claimed only the benefit of special reservation under the Ex-servicemen quota and that he did not claim benefit of reservation under the quota for Dependant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action. 6. It is not disputed that in the application submitted by the respondent he claimed only the benefit of special reservation under the Ex-servicemen quota and that he did not claim benefit of reservation under the quota for Dependant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action. It is also seen from the application for admission submitted by the respondent (Ext.R1(a) that against column 11 relating to special reservation, he claimed special reservation ‘XS’, i.e., special reservation under Ex-Servicemen quota. In answer to the query whether the applicant claims reservation under any other quota the respondent wrote ‘N.A.’, i.e., not applicable. In other words, going by the entries in the application form, the respondent claimed only special reservation under Ex-servicemen quota and he did not claim reservation under any other quota. Even according to the respondent he claimed the benefit of reservation under the quota for Dependant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action only at the time of counseling. 7. In the above circumstances the question is whether the respondent was entitled to be considered under the quota for Dependant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action. As per paragraph 5.2.2 of the prospectus the applicant claiming reservation under the quota for Defendant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action should invariably produce along with the application form, a certificate obtained not earlier than six months from the Military authorities/Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer to the effect that he/she is the son/daughter/widow of the defence person who was killed in action or missing in action or disabled. In the case of disabled personnel, the certificate should specify that the concerned person was/is in receipt of disability pension. Admittedly the respondent did not produce any such certificate and hence he did not comply with the requirement in paragraph 5.2.2 of the prospectus. As per the instructions contained in paragraph 5.2.(iii) of the prospectus the candidates should mention the item of reservation claimed in the relevant column in the application form/ OMR date sheet and should be otherwise eligible as per clause VI. As per paragraph 5.2.(iv) of the prospectus candidates should attach attested copies of the relevant certificates in support of the claim. Both the above instructions were not complied with by the respondent while submitting the application. As per paragraph 5.2.(iv) of the prospectus candidates should attach attested copies of the relevant certificates in support of the claim. Both the above instructions were not complied with by the respondent while submitting the application. In the Note under the heading ‘Claim for Reservation and Certificates to be produced’ it was clearly stated that the claims of those candidates who fail to mention it (special/mandatory reservation) in the application form/OMR date sheet will not be entertained even if the claims/evidences are attempted to be produced subsequently. It was further stated that the claims of special/mandatory reservation once raised in the application form/OMR data sheet cannot be altered by the candidate under any circumstances. Therefore even if the respondent is eligible to be considered under the quota for Dependant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action and even if Ext.P2 certificate is authentic, he is not entitled to be considered in the said quota in view of his failure to claim the benefit of reservation under the said quota while submitting the application and to produce the necessary certificates as required by the Prospectus. 8. In the above circumstances the learned Single Judge was not in directing that the writ petitioner may be given admission to the vacant seat earmarked for the category of Dependant of Defence Personnel, Killed/Missing/Disabled in action. Hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the original petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Hence the judgment in O.P.No.24015 if 2002 is set aside and the Original Petition will stand dismissed. The writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.