PRASANTH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this original petition with a complaint of being denied a seat in the M. B. B. S. course in the quota reserved for Ezhavas. Petitioner throws the blame for this denial on the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to invitation of applications for the M. B. B. S. course 1988, the petitioner applied for a seat. THE form of application requires the candidate to state in its column 11 as to whether he claims reservation "under socially and educationally backward community as per G. O. (P) 208/66 dated 2-5-1966". THE candidate is asked to write yes or no. If the answer is yes he is also expected to write the category and community. It is with reference to this column that the applications for admission are considered. In the petitioner's application, a copy of which is Ext. R2 (a), the petitioner definitely answered no, there by meaning that he did not claim reservation as belonging to a socially and educationally backward community. In view of this negative answer the petitioner's case was considered only in the merit quota and since he did not qualify in that quota, he did not get a seat.

(2.) IT is despite his definite negative answer to column 11 of Ext. R2 (a) namely that he did not claim a seat reserved for the socially and educationally backward communities that the petitioner now contends that he has been wrongly denied a seat in the quota reserved for Ezhavas in the course.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits. The first respondent has appended to his counter affidavit Ext. R1 (a) the communication from the District Collector, Malappuram to Government in which he states that the income certificate issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent was wrong. He points out that the income of the petitioner's family should be computed at Rs. 16,560/- that is much below Rs. 20,000/ -. In other words Ext. Rl (a) conclusively establishes that the income certificate Ext. P6 issued by the Village Officer was not in accordance with Exts. P2, P8 and P9. The second respondent namely the Director of Medical Education has filed a separate counter affidavit in which he points out that despite all that is stated by the petitioner he is not entitled to a seat in the Ezhava quota. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not choose to apply for a seat in that quota having filled up column 11 of the form of application with a clear negative that he was not claiming a seat in the quota reserved for socially and educationally backward communities. The selection committee has considered the matter with reference to the claims made for reservation in the application forms and when the petitioner himself did not claim a seat in that quota there was no question of the respondents granting him a seat in that quota. The petitioner's reply to this is that he filled up column 11 in the manner done only because of the wrong income certificate issued to him.