Pooja J. Pradeep v. Commissioner for Entrance Examination, Tahsildar, Kottarakkara Taluk Office, and Senior Director NEET (UG), National Testing Agency

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F)** ## **PETITIONER:** **POOJA J.PRADEEP, AGED 19 YEARS D/O C.K.PRADEEP KUMAR, SREE BHAVAN, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 505.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARINPANICKER** ## **RESPONDENT:** **1 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION FIFTH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2 TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKARA TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. 3 SENIOR DIRECTOR NEET (UG), NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE 111, NEW DELHI-110 020** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI.S.NIRMAL,SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 6th day of November 2020** The petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) as well as KEAM 2020 Examination. It is stated that she belongs to GANAKA (KANIYAN) community which is eligible for reservation under SEBC. It is stated that the petitioner has got 287 out of 720 marks. It is stated that she had uploaded all the certificates and she was shown as belonging to category OBC (NCL) in Ext.P1 Score Card of the NEET (UG) Test - 2020. Producing Ext.P2 confirmation page in respect of NEET (UG) - 2020 also petitioner claims that she was shown as one belonging to OBC (NCL). In Ext.P4 confirmation page of KEAM 2020 also, the category was shown as BH – EC – Ganaka. However, it is stated that in Ext.P5 NonCreamy Layer Certificate (State Educational Purpose) issued on 26.2.2019 by the Village Officer, her caste was shown as 'Ganaga'. The petitioner submits that despite the uploading of Ext.P5 Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, she was shown as one belonging to General Category. ## **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 3** On enquiry, when the result was published on 9.10.2020, she was given to understand that on account of the mistake committed by the Village Officer in stating her community as 'Ganaga' instead of Ganaka in the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, she was not included in the SEBC category and was shown as General Candidate. Petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to accept the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate and to consider her in the category of OBC. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader made available the Caste Certificate uploaded by the petitioner along with her application for admission to KEAM, in which her caste was shown as OBC/ Kaniyan (Ganaka). It was issued on 1.4.2019. It is also pointed out that the said community, i.e., 'Ganaga' which is shown in the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate is not available in the list of communities eligible for reservation under the SEBC. In Clause 5.4.2 (a) of the Prospectus, it is stated as follows: _“5.4.2 (a) Candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes as per G.O.(P)208/66/Edn. dated 02.05.1966, GO(MS) No.10/2014/BCDD dated: 23.05.2014, G.O.(P)_ ## **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 4** _No.1/2015/BCDD dated:01.01.2015, GO(MS) No.4/2015/H.Edn. dated: 05.01.2015 and GO(MS) No.15/2015/H.Edn. dated: 19.01.2015 should upload to the online application._ _a certificate to the extent that the candidate belongs to the community which is designated as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class and does not belong to the category of Creamy Layer, in the proforma given as Annexure V of the GO(P) No.1/2015/BCDD dated: 01.01.2015. The names of castes and communities under SEBC are given in_ _**Annexure XI** . Only the claims of the candidates of those communities that are included in the list as incorporated in the respective Annexure of the Prospectus 2020 will be considered. Claims by candidates belonging to other communities, which are not included in the Annexure, will be rejected even if certificates from the concerned Revenue Officers have been obtained and uploaded to the online application.”_ 3. Annexure XI of the Prospectus which provides for the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) shows Kanisu or Kaniyar-Panicker, Kaniyan, Kanisan or Kamnan, Kannian or Kani, Ganaka at Sl.No.26. It is also pointed out that Annexure X (a) which provides for the list of Communities Eligible for Educational Concessions includes Ganika at Sl.No.5 and Kanisu or Kaniyar Panicker, Kani or Kaniyan (Ganaka) or Kanisan or Kamnan, Kalari Kurup/Kalari Panicker at Sl.No.6. It is therefore pointed out that the caste 'Ganaga' is not included either in Annexure X(a) or in Annexure X1. ## **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 5** 4. Moreover, the petitioner did not take any steps to cure the defects which was being pointed out by the first respondent from time to time. She claims that she came to know about the defect only after the results of NEET (UG) were released. The confirmation page Ext.P4 itself contains a declaration that the candidate has downloaded various Clauses in the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses 2020 carefully agreeing to abide by them. From the very beginning, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations had been alerting the candidates to visit the candidates' portal frequently. As pointed out by Sri.V.Manu, the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court had dismissed W.P.(C).No.21474/2020 where the petitioner had alleged that she lost opportunity to produce the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate only because the Village Officer was on leave. The procedure adopted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has already been explained in the said judgment in paragraphs 8 and 9, which reads as follows: “ _8. It is seen that none of the petitioners have produced the certificates as required in clause 5.4.2(a) and (b) of the prospectus which was published on 02.02.2020, where it is specifically stated that they have to upload the certificates as required in Annexure V of the G.O.(P) No.1/2015/BCDD dated 19.01.2015 and that they should invariably_ ## **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 6** _upload the non-creamy layer certificate in the prescribed format for State Government Education purpose obtained from the Village Officer concerned. As rightly pointed out by Sri. V. Manu the learned Senior Government Pleader, there was sufficient time available for the petitioners to apply and obtain the certificate along with their application itself before 29.02.2020 well before the outbreak of Covid19 pandemic and even thereafter when opportunities were provided several times till 24.09.2020 each time alerting that no further opportunity would be given. Though it is quite unfortunate for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21474 of 2020, that she could not avail the opportunity made available from 24.09.2020 to 28.09.2020 when her application was pending from 11.09.2020, a further opportunity cannot be directed to be given to the candidates by this court, when the competent authority has fixed the dates and has given multiple chances to the candidates. Those who apply for professional degree courses should be vigilant enough to submit their applications along with the requisite documents as required in the prospectus. Along with the application the candidates are submitting a declaration (as seen from the confirmation page) to the effect that they have downloaded and read various clauses in the prospectus and agreeing to abide by them. In case they had read and understood the provisions in the prospectus properly they would have submitted the relevant certificates along with the application itself or would have got it cleared when opportunities were given further._ _9. Moreover similar claims of candidates who did not upload the requisite documents at the relevant time were rejected by the Division Bench, after elaborately considering the procedure adopted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and with reference to the case law on the subject in the judgments in W.A.No.1080/2020 and W._ ## **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 7** _A.No.1183/2020 respectively. In the judgments in W.P.(C).No. 16518/2020, 17368/2020 and 20844/2020 also similar claims were rejected. It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in_ _**Sainulabdin v. State of Kerala** [1995 KHC 362], relied on by the learned Government Pleader, the Division Bench of this Court has held that failure to submit the income certificate in the form prescribed for that purpose, as provided in the prospectus, along with the application would render the application defective and the candidate cannot seek a remedy on the strength of such a detective application under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the light of the judgment also petitioners cannot be granted any relief. Though Sri. Praveen, the learned counsel for the petitioner in one of the writ petitions relied on the judgment reported in_ _**Chairman NRI Service and Educational Trust v Kerala University of Health Service and others** [2014(3) KLT 312] and argued that the petitioner should be treated as a candidate eligible for reservation, in the light of the judgments of the Division Benches in 1995 and also in 2020, the said contention cannot be accepted. There are sufficient number of candidates who have submitted the valid claims for reservation uploading the requisite documents at the relevant time. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the view that petitioners do not reserve any relief in these writ petitions. Accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed.”_ 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner cannot be penalised for the mistake committed by the Village Officer in stating the community as 'Ganaga' by denying her an opportunity to get admission to Medical College, I find that the petitioner should have availed the opportunity which were made **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 8** available on innumerable occasions by the first respondent. In the above circumstances, the petitioner who was also not vigilant as in the case of the candidates in the other cases, is also not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **P.V.ASHA** **JUDGE** Bb/10/11/2020 ## **WP(C).No.24054 OF 2020(F) 9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF SCORE CARE OF THE PETITIONER IN NEET (UG) 2020 DATED 16.10.2020 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. 200410419337 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR NEET (UG) 2020 DTD.9.12.2019 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD WITH ROLL NO.2806010013 OF THE PETITIONER IN NEET (UG) 2020 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION PAGE OF APPLICATION NO. 1153355 DATED 10.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 26.2.2020 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 3.11.2020 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 8.10.2020** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** _[True copy]_ _P.A to Judge_ Bb