ANJUM ARA Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-1986-6-4
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on June 27,1986

ANJUM ARA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ORDER :- The petitioner in pursuance of Advertisement Notice No. 2/MBBS/85 dated 26-6-1985 applied for being considered for admission to Medical College, Srinagar. The petitioner appeared in the pre-entrance examination and viva voce and obtained 44.31 points both in the written and viva voce, test held by the Medical College, Selection Committee. The only claim made in this petition is based on the ground that the petitioner claims Consideration of her admission in the category of "Backward Area". In accordance with the Notification, she submitted her Form duly filled in indicating therein in column No. 7 of the Application Form for selection to MBBS/BDS Course contains the following entry :- 7. Do you belong to any reserved category ? If so name the category in block letter and attach certificate from competent authority. YES BACKWARD AREA (Emphasis supplied) It is not disputed that while the said Application Form was submitted on July 22, 1985, the Certificate of belonging to 'Backward Area' or its copy was not attached with the Form, as the same is alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner be Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar on July 29, 1985. It is further alleged that at the time when petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee, two clerks who were sitting outside the interview room and were responsible for collection of original certificates from the candidates in terms of cl.11 of the Advertisement Notice, to whom the petitioner handed over the original Certificate issued by Deputy Commissioner of her belonging to 'Backward Area'. The clerks in their turn sent those certificates of which the copies were enclosed with the form as well as the Certificate in question of Backward Area to the Selection Committee. The members of the selection Committee perused the Certificates, interviewed the petitioner and later on the certificates were returned to her. The petitioner, therefore, claimed her admission under SRO 272 dt. July 3, 1982 belonging to the Backward Area and covered by the categories mentioned therein. It is pointed out that the interviews were held on Sept. 22, 1985, earlier to which there was exchange of correspondence between the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee and the petitioner seeking clarification in respect of the name of the father of the petitioner by a letter issued on 5-8-1985. The said letter does not contain any querry with respect to the production of Backward Area Certificate or any other defect in the form. This is also stated that on account of the non-availability of the Tehsildar in his office, the petitioner with a view to ensure that she should not go by default approached the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar for the grant of requisite Certificate in terms of SRO 272 dt. 3-7-1982, who was pleased to grant the Certificate on July 29, 1985. On the declaration of the result in the local newspapers, since the petitioner has not been granted admission in the Backward Area category, in which she sought admission, she made enquiries and on information received she came to know that in Backward Area category, candidates much Lower in merit on the points obtained were admitted the last one being respondent 4, who obtained 29.32 points. The petitioner has been deprived of her right to get the admission giving rise to the present petition.
(2.) The petition is contested by the respondents. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has raised the pure questions of fact, which cannot be determined by way of writ petition, that no fundamental right or legal right of the petitioner has been violated. Reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 98 of 1986 (Mohd Isaq Naigoo v. State) regarding the object of filing the certified copies of the Certificates along with the application form specially when the admission is sought on the basis of the reserved category. The department has also conducted enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the certificate, which accordingly proved as not genuine. It is also submitted that the production of a Certificate to claim selection on the basis of reserved category after the interviews are concluded is not tenable. The production of the certificate of the Backward Area is also denied and also that the Certificate produced with the petition indicates that the same is not on the prescribed form, thus petitioner was not entitled to be selected in the reserved category and hence her merits in the general category can only be considered according to which she does not stand to be selected
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has very specifically mentioned in Col. 7 of the form that she claims admission in the reserved category of Backward Area. This is also submitted that the copy of the Certificate could not be filed at the time when the form was submitted as the same was not issued till that date and was only issued on July 29, 1985, however, she produced the Certificate in original before the Clerks concerned at the time of interview, which was held on September 22, 1985 and the same was before the Committee at the time when she was interviewed. It is further pointed out that in accordance with SRO 272 dt. July 3, 1982, the said certificate could not be obtained from Tehsildar, as he was not available during the days when the Certificate was required to be obtained and because the last date was going to expire she submitted the form without the said Certificate and even thereafter the same has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, who is a higher authority than the Tehsildar and thus the refusal of consideration of the petitioner in the reserved category deprives the petitioner of her fundamental right to get admission in the Medical College. Learned counsel for the petitioner also attacked the cancellation of the Certificate vide order of the Deputy Commissioner reproduced in the counter of the Respondents issued on Nov. 30, 1985 to the Additional Secretary to the Government, General Department, which was done behind her back, for which no investigation was either made nor she was intimated of any infirmity in the Certificate by the said authority. About the issuance of Certificate by a higher authority than the Tehsildar, reliance is placed on an order passed in C.M.P. No. 69 of 1984 by this court in the case of Miss Sonia Niyyar v. State of J. and K.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.