IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18975 of 2008(H)
1. ASHINA SOMAN, 18 YEARES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIPPURAM
For Petitioner :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 18975 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner appeared for the common entrance test for
admission to professional courses in the State of Kerala for this
year. She obtained fairly high rank. But she being an Ezhava, she
is entitled to admission taking into account reservation benefits
applicable to Ezhava candidates. But unfortunately for the
petitioner, in the application submitted by her, the income
certificate given by the Village Officer certified that the income of
the petitioner’s family was Rs.2,55,384/- whereas the income
limit for becoming eligible for reservation was Rs.2.5 lakhs.
Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for reservation was not
considered as the income limit for the purpose of reservation is
Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner would contend that the income
certificate in Ext.P2 application was given by the Village Officer,
taking into account the future salary of the petitioner’s parents
for the next year and not the income for the previous year.
According to the petitioner, going by the decision of this Court in
w.p.c.18975/08 2
Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 44] it is the
income prior to the date of application that has to be taken into
account, and not the next year’s income. In the above
circumstances, the petitioner obtained a fresh income certificate,
Ext.P12 certifying the income of her family as Rs.2,16,581/-, and
submitted the same before the Entrance Commissioner along
with Ext.P11 representation dated 10.6.2008. The petitioner
seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to accept Ext.P12 income
certificate as part of the application and to consider the
petitioner’s case for admission granting her reservation.
2. This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader.
He would submit that the prospectus itself contains stringent
instructions regarding the way the application has to be filled up
and sufficient warning has been given in the prospectus itself to
the effect that any mistake in the application cannot be later
corrected and, certificates later produced will not be considered.
He also points out that going by Ext.P5 salary certificate of the
petitioner’s mother and the income of the father shown in
paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the total income would come to
Rs.2,52,612/-. This is explained by the petitioner that it is
w.p.c.18975/08 3
because Ext.P5 is for the month of January.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. In Ext.P2 application the petitioner obtained income
certificate on 13.2.2008. Therefore, on 13.2.2008, the
petitioner and her parents were very well aware that in the
application form the income shown was Rs.2,55,384/- which
would make her ineligible for reservation. In spite of the same, if
the income shown in the certificate was in any manner incorrect,
neither the petitioner nor her parents took any steps to get the
same corrected in accordance with law. The petitioner started the
exercise of getting a new certificate only in June, 2008. When the
prospectus specifically contains stringent instructions regarding
the manner in which the applications have to be submitted, the
petitioner is bound by the same. Admittedly the petitioner has
not done the same. At this late stage I am not inclined to
entertain such contention which would upset the admission
process. I am also not satisfied that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge in Sreekumar’s case (supra) is the law applicable
in the case since a Division Bench of this Court has in
Meerakutty v. State of Kerala [1991 (1) KLT 208] held that
w.p.c.18975/08 4
the income for the purpose of admission is the income for the
year in which the admission is sought for. Here the income of the
petitioner’s family shown in the application is the income for the
year of admission, which is the correct one.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the
writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge