JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.
1. The question that is posed for consideration in these cases is whether an applicant who belongs to SC/ST community would loose admission due to the omission to mention the caste’s name in the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar which is regulated by the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996.
2. Director of Ayurveda Medical Education invited applications for the Postgraduate degree course in various specialities in Ayurveda for the year 2004-2005. Selection of candidates and allotment to various specialities are made from the list published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination conducted on all India basis. Out of 77 seats as per the prospectus, seven seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates subject to maximum one seat in a subject. Out of the seven seats reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe from the State of Kerala six seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates and one seat for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Persons with higher ranks will have to exhaust their choice before persons in the lower ranks are considered. The choice of subject and college will be according to the rank. Clause 3 of the prospectus deals with eligibility for admission, which is extracted below for easy reference.
Clause 3. Eligibility for admission
(a) Academic: Applicants should have passed the BAM/(Ayurvedacharya) BAMS Degree of Universities of Kerala or its equivalent degree recognized by the University of Kerala with 50% of marks for theory and practical separately in each subject (See, Appendix A). But exemption from minimum marks prescribed for admission for M.D.(Ay.) is granted to the students who have passed the BAMS/BAM Examination before 1995, from the Universities of Kerala without 50% of marks for the theory and practical. Applicants who are undergoing internship training and completing the same on or before the first day of seat allotment for admission will also be eligible to apply for the Entrance Examination. But admission will be given only on the production of Internship Certificate and Restriction Certificate from the Medical Council constituted in this regard.
(b) Age: The candidates otherwise eligible for admission should not be more than 45 years as on 1st January of the succeeding year, subject to a relaxation of a maximum of five years in the case of SC/ST candidates.
(v) Nativity: Only Indian citizens are eligible to apply.
Pass in BAM/(Ayurvedacharya) BAMS, Degree of Universities of Kerala or its equivalent degree recognized by the University of Kerala with 50% of marks for the theory and practical separately in each subject is therefore an essential qualification subject to exception mentioned therein. Exemption from minimum marks prescribed for admission for M.D. (Ayurveda) is granted to those students who have passed the BAMS/BAM examination before the year 1995. Applicants who are undergoing internship training and completing the same on or before the first day of seat allotment for admission will also be eligible to apply for the Entrance Examination. Admission will be given only on production of Internship Certificate and Registration Certificate from the Medical Council constituted in this regard. Clause 11 of the prospectus stipulates that candidates who wish to appear for the Entrance Examination should forward the application correctly filled up together with Demand Draft worth Rs. 800/- before the time and date notified. Clause 11(b) which is relevant for our purpose is extracted below.
(b) Candidates except those belonging to SC/ST categories need not enclose any certificates/documents along with the application form. However, they have to produce the original certificates/documents as given under Clause 11 (c) along with attested copies of the same, at the time of allotment of seats. Teachers of Ayurveda Colleges and Medical officers (ISM) should route their application through their controlling Officers to the Director of Ayurveda Medical Education Arogyabhavan Building, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram before the date and time of notification. In such cases, the application fee should be remitted in Treasury in the Head of Account “0210-02-101-99” and the original Chalan should be sent to the Director of Ayurveda Medical Education. The application should be prepared in plain paper clearly superscribed as “Application for admission to MD(Ay) 2004-2005 against the seat reserved for Teachers/ Medical Officers”.
On a conjoint reading of Clause 3 and Clause 11 (b) would indicate that general candidates other than SC/ST categories need not enclose any certificate/document along with the application. In other words, so far as general candidates are concerned all the essential qualifications like pass in BAM/(Ayurvedacharya) BAMS with 50% marks for theory and practical separately etc. requirement of age, proof regarding age, nativity etc. need be produced only at the time of allotment of seats. Production of the above mentioned documents along with the application is not a mandatory requirement. The expression used in Clause 11(b) is “need not enclose any certificates/documents”. However, general candidates have to produce the original certificates/documents as given under Clause 11(c) along with attested copies of the same at the time of allotment of seats. So far as SC/ST candidates are concerned they have to produce the original certificates/documents as given in Clause 11(c).
3. The prospectus refers to prescribed form of application for admission. Form has got separate application number and roll number. Column 6 of the application form deals with communal reservation wherein applicant has to state whether he/she belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. Application form also refers to prescribed form for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community to furnish community certificate. Issue of community certificates to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is regulated by Act II of Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996. Instruction (4) contained in the Instructions to fill in the application form reads as follows:
(4) Candidates applying for the Entrance Examination need not enclose any certificates/ documents along with the application Form. (However, candidates belonging to SC/ST categories should submit the “Community Certificate” in the format given on page No. 4 of the Application form itself, along with the Application Form”.
4. Appellant is an Ayurveda Doctor belongs to Pulluvan community, which is recognised by the State of Kerala as a Scheduled Caste. She applied for admission in the prescribed form. In column 6 of the application form she stated that she belongs to scheduled caste community, but in the certificate issued by the Tahsildar the caste name was omitted. She was therefore denied admission to the M.D. Ayurveda (Ayurveda Vachaspathi) for the year 2004-2005. She came out successful in the written test and she was given rank number 4 among the candidates belonging to scheduled caste the result of which was published on 14.12.2004. However in the category list published on 24.12.2004 her roll number and rank number were not seen included. She therefore addressed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. She was served with reply dated 10.1.2005 which reads as follows:
“Based on the preliminary verification of records, you were permitted to appear for the Entrance Examination.
Subsequently, at the time of preparation of category list, the documents attached along with the application for SC/ST claim were again verified. It was found that, the Community Certificate submitted by you did not show the name of the community to which you belong, it could not be ascertained whether you belong to scheduled caste. Accordingly, your claim under SC category was disallowed and hence, you were considered only as a General Candidate and not included in the category list of SC”.
Request of the appellant for including her roll number and rank number in the category list was therefore rejected. Aggrieved by the same she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2413 of 2005. During the pendency of the Writ Petition one seat was kept reserved. However, learned Single Judge finally dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the defect in the application cannot be permitted to be supplied or cured later as that would affect the rights of others who have competed with the appellant and who had submitted proper applications. Learned Single Judge opined that even though the materials produced do suggest compellingly that the appellant does belong to Pulluvan community, a recognised scheduled caste it is not possible for the Court to hold that the application was proper as to entitle her to compete to the seat reserved for scheduled caste candidate. Aggrieved by the same she filed the present appeal.
5. A Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed interim order 28.2.2005 directing the respondent to treat the appellant as a member of scheduled caste and to consider her for admission to one of the seats reserved for members of scheduled caste. On the strength of the interim order she has been admitted to the course in the subject Roghanidhanam on 11.3.2005 and classes have already started. One Dr. Shiny K.M. having rank No. 7 in the SC/ST list got herself impleaded in the appeal. She also belongs to Hindu Kanakan community, which is recognised as scheduled caste community in the State. She was also admitted to the course by memo dated 28.1.2005 making it clear that her admission would be subject to the result of the Writ Appeal. She submitted that appellant is not eligible to get admission since her application was defective. However, Dr. Shiny stated that her application was complete in all respects and was in order and therefore there is no justification in denying admission to her. W.P.(C) No. 9013 of 2005 was filed by one Dr. Sanila V.K. Her rank number is 32 in the general merit quota list. She was called for interview on 28.1.2005. She was later asked to appear for counselling on 7.2.2005. During the counselling she was informed that there was a vacancy in the speciality Roghanidhanam. She was allotted that speciality. While so, she got a telegram on 7.3.2005 from the second respondent stating that the option “Roganidhanam” could not be entertained in view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 2413 of 2005 and her admission to “Roganidhanam” would stand cancelled. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9013 of 2005 Sri. P.K. Ravisankar as well as Sri. K. Jayasankar who appeared for Dr. Shiny submitted that Dr. Bindu has no legal right to get admission since her application was defective and that the application filed by Dr. Shiny was in order. Counsel also submitted that Dr. Bindu has committed a mistake in not properly perusing the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar and hence the application was rightly rejected. Learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the counter affidavit submitted that the application of Dr. Bindu was rejected since she had not produced proper community certificate from the Tahsildar along with the application. Further it was also submitted that it was the duty of the applicant to see that proper certificate is produced which is a mandatory requirement.
6. We may examine the rival contentions in the light of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Ors., . That was a case where the candidate had appeared for the Joint Entrance Examination in the year 2003 under the reserved MI category being daughter of an ex-serviceman who was discharged from armed forces on the ground of permanent disability. Under Clause 2.1.4 of Information Brochure of JEE 2003 certain percentage of seats are reserved for children/widows of personnel of armed/paramilitary forces. Her rank in the JEE 2003 in the reserved MI category in the medical stream was 20. Accordingly she was called for counselling for admission to medical college on 7.7.2003. During the course of scrutiny of the papers it was revealed that in the certificate dated 29.6.2003 given to her father by the Zilla Sainik Boards in column No. 3 relating to “Disabled/killed in war/ hostilities” the words “not eligible” were written. Candidature was rejected since the certificate did not mention about the reserved MI category. She later produced disability certificate issued to her father by the army authorities but in view of requirement of Clause 2.1.4 of the Information Brochure the same was not accepted. Candidate’s father then requested the Zilla Board to rectify the mistake and a fresh certificate was issued on 16.7.2003 which mentioned “Permanently Disabled” in column No. 3. Candidate later approached the authorities with the corrected certificate but no action was taken. Though other candidates who had secured lower ranks were called for counselling she was not called for counselling. Her case was that it was the Zilla Sainik Board which had committed the mistake in not issuing the correct certificate and since the said mistake was rectified she was entitled for admission. Candidature was rejected on the ground that at the time of counselling she failed to produce certificate to show that she belongs to a reserved category. The Apex Court while considering the matter held as follows:
“The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard ie., in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. Similarly in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or per centage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principles as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature”.
(emphasis added)
The Apex Court also approved the principle laid down in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, , and ultimately held as follows:
“The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI category. She comes from a very humble background, her father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29.6.2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. Those who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been admitted. The view taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust and illegal”.
We are of the view the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions would apply to the facts of this case. Dr. C.K. Bindu admittedly belongs to Pulluvan community, a scheduled caste. She has secured rank No. 4 while Dr. Shiny, the other scheduled caste candidate has got rank No. 7. Dr. Sanila, writ petitioner in W.P.C. No. 9013 of 2005 is not a scheduled caste candidate. Her rank number is 32 in the general category. Both Dr. Shiny and Dr. Sanila would not get admission to M.D. Roganidhanam if Dr. Bindu’s application is entertained, though Dr. Sanila can aspire for some other speciality. The question is whether Dr. Bindu who is having a higher rank be denied admission on the mere ground that the Tahsildar has failed to mention her caste name in the community certificate the issuance of which is regulated by Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996. Section 2(c) of the Act states that “Community Certificate” means the certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed form indicating therein the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, to which a person belongs. Section 4 of the Act states that any person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in order to prove his claim that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, for any purpose shall make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed to the competent authority for the issue of a community certificate. Section 5 of the Act enables the Competent Authority to issue certificate for claiming the benefit of reservation for admission to educational institutions. When a community certificate is issued a duty is cast on the applicant to verify as to whether it is competent in all respects, so also on the Tahsildar. Tahsildar who issued the certificate later owned the mistake and sent a communication, operative portion of the same reads as follows:
“The community certificate issued to you on 3.11.2004 in the prescribed form annexed to the application for the admission to M.D. Ayurveda Course, Kerala 2004-2005 was on the basis of the local enquiry and documents produced by you to prove that you belong to the Pulluvan Community which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. The omission of to record the name of your caste (Pulluvan) in the Certificate is only a clerical error, which was due to pressure of work and consequential oversight.”
In the light of the above mentioned facts we have to examine whether we should reject the claim of Dr. Bindu for admission to the M.D. course on the basis of the mistake committed in the office of the Tahsildar in not stating her caste name in the community certificate. Reservation is given to members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community for admission to the post graduate course to achieve a social objective. Article 46 in the Directive Principles of State Policy states that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of weaker sections of the people and in particular the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Article 15(4) stipulates that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them and the State is not prevented from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Omission or mistake committed by the Tahsildar in not mentioning the caste name in the community certificate would not and should not be the basis to deny admission to a scheduled caste candidate having a higher rank. The failure on the part of the candidate in noting the omission or mistake committed by the Tahsildar cannot be put against the petitioner to deny admission to her to the reserved quote especially when she holds higher rank. We are adopting such an approach in view of the terms and conditions of the prospectus which we are called upon to interpret. We have already stated candidates belonging to forward communities and other backwards communities need not enclose any certificate along with the application form though those documents are very relevant and essential for securing admission. Certificate like pass in B.A.M./B.A.M.S. with 50% or more as well as the age certificate, community certificate etc. are also equally important but need be produced only at the time of allotment of seat. Prospectus states that those certificates need not be produced along with the application. In our view, failure to state the caste name in the certificate issued by the Tahsildar due to a mistake would not disqualify a candidate belonging to SC/ST community for securing admission since mistake was later corrected by the Tahsildar. Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda’s case, supra, , has held that what is essential is proof of community. Community certificate has been produced by the candidate at the time of allotment of seats and the candidate has unquestionably proved her caste. In the light of the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal and declare that the admission already given to her on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court is in order. We do not propose to express any opinion regarding the admission, if any given to Dr. Sanila V.K. and Dr. Shiny.
The appeal is allowed as above. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 9013 of 2005 is dismissed.