Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 576 (KAR)

Mammi Divya Theja v. Executive Director

2012-07-18

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2012
Judgment 1. Petitioner, daughter of an Ex-serviceman on completing her 12th Standard (10+2), a gold medalist in swimming competition having represented the country both at the National and International levels made an application, in the prescribed form, for admission to professional courses for the year 2012-13 declaring to belong to reserved category-II A. In the Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by the respondent-Karnataka examination authority, for short ‘KEA’, during the year 2012, petitioner was assigned 8404 rank in the medical list and 9852 in the engineering list and assigned Sl.No.2 against reservation for Sports category. According to the petitioner the declaration to belong to Category II A was due to inadvertence, though she belonged to category-I(Yadava), while the request for change of category was orally rejected on the premise that category once declared in the application form cannot be changed. Petitioner asserts the mistake being due to oversight is curable and the authorities were not justified in denying the change, though was in possession of a certificate in Form No. E declaring to belong to category-I issued by the competent authority. Hence the petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the acknowledgment Annexure-H and for a direction to: - (a) consider her representation dt. 9.7.2012 Annexure-M by treating her as belonging to category-I and to accept the caste certificate in Form No. E, Annexure-G5; (b) to retain the petitioner’s ranking in the list of medical seats by treating her as belonging to Category-I; (c) to consider the petitioner’s candidature for medical seat under the reservation for Sports Special category and (d) for such other reliefs as deem fit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the averments in the memorandum of writ petition to submit that the petitioner having made an application in the form prescribed, for admission, signed by herself and her father declaring to belong to reserve category – II A being a curable mistake, the correction of which if permitted would cause no inconvenience to any of the candidates, muchless the process of counseling, but its rejection by the respondent would virtually put an end to the petitioner’s efforts in securing a seat in medicine under the reserved special sports category, being assigned Sl.No.2 in that category. Learned counsel makes reference to the instructions in the CET brochure, more appropriately to paragraphs 2 and 4 under the nomenclature ‘After Entrance Test’, and ‘Reservation of seats in favour of certain categories’, in support of the submissions. 3. Sri. N K Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent-KEA points to clause no.(8) under the heading ‘How to fill the Application Form’ in the ‘CET’ brochure, to submit that petitioner is informed to furnish the particulars of caste or category and annual income which would remain the same for the purpose of assignment of rank/allotment of seat and that no change will be entertained in future for any reason. So also, it is submitted that the note in the application form states that no change in category, caste or income would be entertained for any reason’. 4. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner having declared to belong to Reserved Category – II A, and assigned Sl. NO.2 in the Reserved Sports Special Category, coupled with 48.3% marks secured in the total taken together in Physics, Chemistry & Biology subjects in the CET examination, though eligible to apply for a seat in Medical Stream, in terms of Paragraph (3) of the CET Brochure under the nomenclature ‘who can apply’, nevertheless, failed to produce a certificate issued by a competent authority declaring to belong to Reserved Category IIA. Learned counsel hastens to add that petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of 50% of marks taken together, in Physics, Chemistry & Biology in the CET examination for a consideration under General Merit in the light of Rule 3(1)(b)(i) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to government seats in professional educational institution rules, 2006, for short ‘Rules’. 5. It is submitted that in similar though not identical circumstances, a learned single judge by order dt. 10.7.2012 in W.P.No.23006/2012 in the case of Smt. Veena Mohan G –v-KEA having extracted Clause (8) of the instructions in the CET brochure and note no.2 in the application held that there was no case made out for interference and accordingly dismissed the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the instructions in the CET brochure and the ‘Rules’, indisputably Clause (8) of the instructions in the CET brochure states that no change will be entertained in future for any reason with regard to caste/category/annual income as declared in the application. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the instructions in the CET brochure and the ‘Rules’, indisputably Clause (8) of the instructions in the CET brochure states that no change will be entertained in future for any reason with regard to caste/category/annual income as declared in the application. So also note No.2 at the foot of the application form specifically informs the applicant that no change in caste or category will be permitted at any point of time and that the candidate should produce the caste and income certificate during the seat selection process which should be the same as declared in the application. The ‘rules’ do not provide for any relaxation in the matter of change in category at any time after the filing of the application. 7. Regard being had to the aforesaid material instructions to be followed by the petitioner, when acted upon, declaring to belong to category – II A in the CET application cannot be heard to submit is an inadvertent mistake which is curable at any point of time, much less at the time of verification of documents. Instructions in the CET brochure and the note in the application form requires to be scrupulously adhered to, since the selection process is to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. In the absence of a Rule permitting relaxation in change of category/caste or income, at any time after filing the application, there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions mentioned in the CET application. There is no dispute that the category to which the applicant belongs is one of the important criteria in the process of counseling for admission to a seat in the technical curse. The mistake or error committed by the petitioner in mentioning the reserve category as II A, in the application, permitting its correction at any stage after its submission or while in the process of CET counseling is violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The observation of Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Safidullah Khan & Ors, ( AIR 2012 SC 1803 ) in the circumstances is apposite: “28. The observation of Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Safidullah Khan & Ors, ( AIR 2012 SC 1803 ) in the circumstances is apposite: “28. We have considered the entire matter in detail, in our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with article 14 of the constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in he terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.” 8. A Division Bench by order dt. 31.5.2012 in W.A.2579/2012 and 2581-91/2012 observed that the condition stipulated in the instructions (CET brochure) cannot be rewritten in a writ jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel for CET submits that the petitioner may seek allotment of a seat in the engineering stream reserved for Special Sports Category, since assigned serial no.2 therein, and having obtained 61% in the total of the marks together in physics. Chemistry & mathematics in the CET examination. In the result, there being no merit in the petition, is accordingly rejected.