ANIL KUMAR BERWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby he was denied admission in the Government Polytechnic College. The reason given by the respondents for denying admission to the petitioner is that his certificate issued by a Government Officer showing his status as Scheduled Caste does not record his surname. It only says, Anil Kumar son of Sualal, without specifying Berwal as his surname. Before the interview board the petitioner's candidature was not considered because the petitioner failed to fulfil the direction No. 7 of the brochure which is in terms of Rule 9(3)(i), Direction 7 reads as under - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) THE contention of the respondents is that in the certificate no surname is added and, therefore, this clause has not been complied with and, therefore, his form was not considered to be complete in terms of 9(3)(i) of Annex. R.1, which reads as under - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no control of the petitioner over the State authorities who are responsible for issuing the caste certificate Annex, 8. It was for the State authorities to have known it as to what kind of identification have to be put in the certificate. The petitioner had applied for issuance of a caste certificate. He has been issued a caste certificate of the Scheduled Caste nature. This was beyond the control of the petitioner to have used the surname in the caste certificate. Because neither he was required to fill up his surname in that certificate nor he could direct the authorities to put the surname in the caste certificate.