JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the private respondent No. 6. Also heard Mr. P.K. Mushahary, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the official respondents.
2. Both the writ petitioner and the private respondent No. 6 were aspirants for medical admission for the session 2005-06. In the common entrance examination held in the month of May 2005 the petitioner secured 159 marks and was placed at serial No. 505 in order of merit. The respondent No. 6 secured 163 marks and was placed against the merit position No. 426. The respective forms submitted by the aforesaid two candidates are concerned would go to show that both of them had applied for admission as candidates belonging to Char Area category. In the merit list published, the name/Roll No. of the writ petitioner appeared against serial No. 4 of the said category, i.e., Char Area category; however, the name/Roll No. of respondent No. 6 was not included in the said category. As some of the candidates placed higher than the writ petitioner in the Char area category were found to be ineligible for admission or had opted out of the admission process according to the petitioner, his turn had come for admission. However, on the date of counseling the respondent No. 6, whose name/Roll No. was not included in the list of candidates belonging to the Char Area, category was allowed to participate in the counseling held for the candidates belonging to the said category and on the basis of the better merit position, the respondent No. 6 was offered admission Consequently, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The pleadings made in the writ petition and the oral arguments advanced by Shri J. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would go to show that the primary thrust of the challenge made is to the effect that the respondent No. 6 had not enclosed with his application form any certificate to show that he belonged to the Char Area category and the requisite certificate was obtained by him on 4.7.2005, i.e., on the eve of the counseling held on 7.7.2005. Next, it is argued that the respondent No. 6 by stating in the application form that his father had an income of Rs. 40,000 per annum had suppressed the truth inasmuch as from the records produced it is evident that the income of the father of the petitioner was Rs. 93,000. This is contended to be fatal insofar as the entitlement of respondent No. 6 to admission is concerned in view of the norms governing the admission process as laid down by the Rules in force. Lastly, it has been urged that the income of the father of the petitioner, i.e., Rs. 93,000 does not entitle the respondent No. 6 to come under the category of economically and socially backward candidate belonging to the Char area category for whom reservation to the extent of two seals has been made.
4. The Gauhati University which had conducted the entrance examination and the official respondents as well as the private respondent No. 6 have filed their respective counter affidavits. The records relevant to the case has also been placed before the Court Including the Rules governing admission as well as the information bulletin supplied to the candidates alongwith the application form. The materials on record would go to show that at the time of submission of application by a candidate to participle in the common entrance examination only the form in Form-A is required to be filled up. In the Form-A submitted by the respondent No. 6 it was clearly mentioned that he is claiming a seat as a Char area category candidate. In terms of the information bulletin supplied to candidates, no certificates were required to be submitted at the stage of submission of Form A. There another part of the form, i.e., Form-B which is given to the candidates on the last date of the entrance examination. The Form-B supplied In the candidates has several self-contained certificates in blank which are required to be filled up by the prescribed authorities. This Form-B is required to be submitted by a candidate on the date of counseling, the he respondent No. 6 had accordingly submitted the said Form B along with all the certificates incorporated therein at the time of his counseling. In the meantime, as would be evident from the affidavit filed by the Gauhati University, the non-inclusion of the name of the respondent No. 6 in the category of Char area candidates was found by the University to be an inadvertent omission and the University had requested the counseling authority to consider the case of the petitioner as a Char area candidate by issuing a letter dated 2.7.2005 to the said effect. On the said basis, in the counseling held by virtue of the prescribed certificate produced by the respondent No. 6 that he belongs to the Char area category and by virtue of his higher merit, he was found eligible for admission.
5. No certificate being required to be submitted at the stage of submission of Form-A, the argument advanced by Sri J. Ahmed learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the production of the certificate by the respondent No. 6 on 4,7.2005 would make him ineligible for admission cannot be accepted. The reliance placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. reported in 1995 Suppl Vol. 1 SCC 188 does not lend any support to the petitioner. In the aforesaid case the candidate had applied for admission to the medical course against the quota for sportsmen. The Rules governing admission required the necessary certificates to be furnished along with the application. In the present case, at the stage of submission of Form-A, no certificate was required to be enclosed. The certificates which forms a part of the Form-B were required to be obtained by a candidate and submitted al the time of counseling. This is precisely what the respondent No. 6 had done.
6. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 is guilty of suppression of fact because he had wrongly mentioned the income of his father also cannot find acceptance of the Court. The total income worked out by the authority in the verification process at Rs. 93,000 is inclusive of income from cultivation earned by the father of the respondent No. 6. This aspect may not have been known to the respondent No. 6. In any case, the inaccuracy in the income of the father of the respondent No. 6 cannot be construed by the Court to be such a vital flaw that it should be understood to vitiate the candidature of the respondent No. 6.
7. The last argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as the respondent No. 6’s father has a monthly income of Rs. 93,000, the respondent No. 6 cannot be considered to be an economically backward candidate belonging to the Char area. Who should be and who should not be considered to be economically and socially backward for the purpose of admission to the medical course is governed by norms laid down by the Government and such questions cannot be left to the decided by a subjective process or by the subjective opinion of the Court. In the present case, notwithstanding the income of Rs. 93,000 earned by the father of the respondent No. 6, the Project Officer of the Char Area Authority as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, has Certified that the respondent No. 6 is entitled to belong to the said category for the purpose of medical admission. In such a situation having regard to the better merit of the respondent No. 6, I am of the view that the matter should be allowed to rest at that: and ought not to be allowed to be carried any further.
8. For the aforesaid reasons I find no good ground to interfere with admission offered to the respondent No. 6. The writ petition accordingly has to fail. It is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.