AEBRIN K PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an aspirant for admission to the Medical Course, namely Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) course for the year 2012. He appeared for the Entrance Examination 2012 and secured Rank No. 4675. He is a Christian by faith and belongs to Orthodox Syrian Community. As per the scheme of admission, the respondents 1 and 2 had approved a quota namely minority/community quota in private self financing colleges belonging to each community. Out of 50% seats available in Government quota, 30% will be allotted to the candidates belonging to the respective community of such colleges. Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College, Kolenchery is the only college in private self financing sector run by the religious denomination of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to claim the said quota. For the said purpose, it is stipulated by the second respondent that candidates should register their names in the prescribed pro forma along with a community certificate issued by the Village Officer.

(2.) THE petitioner registered his claim and submitted Ext. P-1 application in the prescribed pro forma within the time. He also produced Ext. P-2, the original community certificate issued by the Village Officer. As per the instructions, the 2nd respondent has not stated that the certificate of the Vicar should be attached in original. On the other hand, Ext. P-3 general instructions by the 2nd respondent clearly shows that the original certificate should be produced before the Principals concerned after the allotment. In the above context, the petitioner produced a copy of the said certificate attested by a Gazetted Officer before the 2nd respondent. Ext. P-4 is the true copy of the Vicar's community certificate and Ext. P-4(a) is the true copy of the concerned notification dated 20-6-2012 of the 2nd respondent. Ext. P-4(a) has not required the production of original certificate by Vicar. The petitioner has a valid claim in minority quota. He submitted the application with the certificates in time. But the second respondent without giving any opportunity rejected the application of the petitioner on the reason that the original of the Vicar's certificate is not produced along with the application. The rejection of the application was also not properly communicated. The petitioner came to know about the same when his name was not considered in the third round allotment. When the petitioner made an enquiry personally at the 2nd respondent's office at Thiruvananthapuram, he was furnished with Ext. P-5 common communication kept with them. In the third allotment, the 2nd respondent gave allotment in the minority quota for Malankara Orthodox Syrian(Mx) to Rank No. 4842 which is below the petitioner's rank. The claim of the petitioner is illegally rejected and the second respondent gave allotment to a lesser rank holder. Ext. P-6 is the true copy of the said third round allotment details. The conduct of the second respondent constitute arbitrariness and illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

(3.) THE petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations against the petitioner in the counter-affidavit. The averments that the petitioner should have produced the original certificate of the Vicar of the Parish countersigned by Bishop is not based on the stipulations in Exts. P-1, P-3 and P-4 (a). The copy of the community certificate produced by the petitioner as well as the certificate issued by the Revenue Officials unambiguously reveal the petitioner's community and satisfy the requirement for admission under community quota. There is no stipulation either in Exts. P-1, P-3 or P-4 (a) requiring to produce original of the community certificate issued by the Vicar and countersigned by the Bishop. In Ext. P-4 (a), the only requisite condition was to produce community certificate attested by the Revenue Officials and the petitioner had produced Ext. P-2 community certificate, which satisfies that requirement. However, he also produced attested photocopy of Ext. P-4 community certificate issued by the Vicar and countersigned by the Bishop, in time. Since there was no requirement to produce the original of the certificate issued by the Vicar, he was under the firm belief that his application was complete and proper in all respects. There was no room to doubt the correctness of his application. So he did not verify the portal of respondents. Moreover, in the locality where the petitioner resides the accessibility to website is very feeble. Moreover, the portal of the Entrance Commissioner will be very busy and most of the time it will get jammed and become inaccessible. Since there was no requirement to produce the original community certificate, the petitioner cannot be found fault with for non- production of original community certificate. Even the prospectus does not stipulate any opportunity to rectify mistakes, if any, or laches on his part in not producing the original of the community certificate.