N CHANDRIKA Vs. CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is the second round of litigation by the petitioner in this Court. She was an applicant for a seat in the 1 Year M.B.B.S. Course in one of the Government Medical Colleges or in Colleges where Government had control over the seats. Her application related to the academic year 1984-85. The petitioner, Kumari N. Chandrika, belongs to what is known as 'Stanika Caste'. That caste, under Government Order bearing No. SWL 12 TBS 77 dated 22nd February, 1977, is listed as one of the backward castes at Sl. No. 114 for purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution. It is needless for this Court to repeat that such listing entitled her to claim a seat within the quota reserved for backward castes. But after being interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted under the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1984, her application was rejected to be considered for a seat in the quota reserved for backward castes on the sole ground that her ancestors were all Ayurvedic Pandits and never worked as servants of the temple and therefore there was no proof that she was a stanika. In that circumstance, she approached this Court in W.P.No. 16270/1984. By an order dated 8th November 1984 this Court directed the Selection Committee in the following terms : "(i) The Writ Petition is allowed ; (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the 1st respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for selection against one of the seats reserved for back-ward class after holding such enquiry as it deems fit, but in conformity with the rules of natural justice; (iii) If after the enquiry the Selection Committee finds that the claim of the petitioner for. selection against one of the seats reserved for backward class is well founded, the Selection Committee shall proceed to select her for admission against one such seat during the current academic year, if on the basis of the marks obtained by her in the entrance test, she is found entitled for such selection. If, on the other hand, the Selection Committee comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not established her claim for selection against one of the seats reserved for backward class, the Selection Committee shall communicate the decision with reasons, to the petitioner."

(2.) Thereafter, she was given an opportunity by the Selection Committee to place her claims before them once again. By Proceedings of the Meeting of the Selection Committee for Admission to M.B.B.S. Course held on 11-12-1984 together with the Member Secretary, he issued an endorsement as follows : "The Selection Committee considered the claim of Kum. N. Chandrika, as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 16270 of 1984 dated 8-11-1984. Kum. N. Chandrika appeared before the Selection on 11-12-1984. Kum. N. Chandrika produced the same certificates which she had produced earlier. The entries in her cumulative record shows her father's occupation as "Ayurvedic Physician". She also informed that she has never availed the benefit available to persons belonging to backward castes earlier. She did not produce any additional or fresh proof in support of her claim under backward caste. In view of this, the Selection Committee unanimously reiterates its earlier decision rejecting her claim under backward caste category." The same was communicated to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, she has approached this Court once again. In this Writ Petition the petitioner has inter alia contended that the respondent-Selection Committee has erred in rejecting her claims without even levelling a charge against her; that the certificate produced by her that she belongs to 'Stanika' caste is a false one, a forged one or something obtained by fraud. It is further contended that the Selection Committee has no right to disbelieve the certificate issued unless it is found to be false, forged or fraudulently obtained.

(3.) The Selection Committee is represented by the learned Government Pleader on the show cause notice issued by this Court as to why rule should not be issued and he has made the records available once again to this Court. The contentions are : (1) That at the second opportunity given to her, it was proved that she was not eligible on her own admission to the benefit of the seat reserved for backward caste and further that this Court had clearly enunciated in the case of Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges v. Vidya Rajagopal [1982(1) Karnataka taw Journal, 1] ; that such rejection can be made by the Selection Committee. (2) That the Selection Committee had the authority to decide who was eligible for a seat in the reserved category for backward castes and communities etc., and that decision was final.