A SAINULABDIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in the Original Petition are the appellants. The second appellant is the daughter of the first appellant. The second appellant was a candidate for the Medical Course. Since she had not produced the required income certificate in the prescribed form along with the application, she was not treated as a candidate eligible to be considered for the reserved quota. Learned Judge declined to interfere with her non selection. Hence the appeal.

(2.) It is an admitted case that the 2nd appellant while filing the application did not enclose the income certificate required for the purpose of claiming reservation. As a matter of fact, the income certificate form was kept blank. The contention of the appellant is that along with the application she had sent the salary certificate of her father, the 1st appellant issued by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, and therefore, she ought to have been considered as eligible for reservation. The further contention is that by Ext. P7 letter dated 14-8-1995 the second appellant sent the income certificate issued by the Village Officer, Thrikkakara North, Ernakulam District and that since the certificate had been sent before the interview for admission she should have been considered as eligible for the reservation quota.

(3.) We have considered the argument of the learned counsel. We find that clause (2) of Annexure II in the prospectus for Under Graduate Medical and Allied Courses 1995 clearly states that the candidate should produce community certificate and income certificate in the proforma given in the application itself. Since the appellant did not produce the required income certificate she was not considered for reservation quota and she could not find her name in the select list published by the Government. It is only after the publication of the results of the entrance examination the appellants have filed the O.P.