SONIA NAYYAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question to be decided in this appeal is whether a certificate required to be issued by a particular officer is not valid and cannot be taken into consideration if it is not issued by that particular officer and is instead issued by another officer, even though superior in rank to the prescribed officer. How this question falls for our consideration and adjudication in this appeal under the Letters Patent will be clear by the narration of brief facts leading to the filling of this appeal.

(2.) VIDE advertisement notice No. 5/ MBBS/83 dated 24.5.1983, applications on prescribed forms were invited from permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir State for admission to the 1st year M. B. B. S. course in the Medical Colleges of Jammu and Srinagar. Vice Para 8 of this advertisement notice it was prescribed that those candidates who claimed consideration for selection to the Course on the basis of their belonging to any of the categories mentioned in this Para should attach with their application forms certificates in the prescribed form issued by the competent authority which was nominated in the Annexure to the advertisement notice. Clause 2 (b) of Para 8 of the said notice included the category of * residents of backward areas and the competent authority nominated for issuing the certificate in the prescribed form in the annexure in the advertisement notice was the Tehsildar of the concerned area. The appellant applied for admission to the MBBS Course pursuant to this notification, claiming to be considered as a candidate belonging to the backward area under the aforementioned Para 8 of the advertisement notice. The appellant claimed to be belonging to village Assoh in Tehsil Basohli of District Kathua, which stood declared as a backward area vide Annexure 2 to the Notification issued by the State Government vide SRO 394 dated 5.9.1981. Instead of submitting the certificate by the Tehsildar of the concerned area, which was the requirement of the aforesaid advertisement notiee, the appellant submitted a certificate issued by the S. D. M. Basohli to the effect that she was resident of Village Assooh Tehsil Basohli This certificate duly issued by the collector S. D. M. Basohli on 3.6.1982 was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner Kathua. It also bore a note by the S D, M that the post of Tehsildar was vacant at the relevant time and was not likely to be filled up for some time more and therefore the certificate was being issued by the S. D. M. Bosohli. since the certificate submitted by the appellant with her application form for admission to the M. B. B. S. Course did not strictly conform to the requirement relating to the issuing authority, the respondents refused to take note of the certificate, in turn, refusing to consider the appellant in the category of residents of backward area . Aggrieved by this refusal the appellant filed the writ petition in this court. Even though vide order dt. 24.3 1984, the appellant was granted provisional admission, ultimately her writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide the judgment dt. 22.12.1990. It is against this judgment that the appellant has filed this appeal under Letters Patent.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge after discussing various facts and circumstances of the case and applying legal principles on them, held that the Certificate issued by the Collector S. D. M. Basohli did not meet the legal requirements and that it was mandatory for the appellant to have obtained and presented the certificate issued by the Tehsildar Basohli, who alone according to learned Single Judge, was the competent authority to issue such certificates. It may also be noted that pursuant to her provisional admission granted by the court vide order dated 24 3 1984, the appellant had completed her studies and had in fact been granted the Degree of M. B. B. S. before her writ petition came to be dismissed. Notwithstanding this factual position, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition cancelled the provisional admission granted to the appellant and consequent upon cancellation of the provision admission held that respondents would not be bound by any of the results declared in favour of the appellant in the intervening period. It is also worth noticing that the provisional admission granted by this court to the appellant on 24 3 1984 was confirmed by the Supreme Court because a Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent - State against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 23.4.1984.