The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to category certificates under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act is subject to producing the certificates within the stipulated time, and the requirement to produce category certificates before the cut-off date is emphasized.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Petitioners, claiming to belong to ALC category, have participated in Common Entrance Test 2016. Both writ petitions relate to same-subject matter. It would be appropriate to first take writ petition (OWP No. 204/2016) to set at rest the controversy.

OWP No. 204/2016.

The case set up by petitioners is that they belong to category of ALC. They responded to Notification No. 01-BOPEE of 2016, dated 19.01.2016 and participated in the Common Entrance Test 2016. It is contended that although both were the candidates residing in the area of ALC, yet they could not submit requisite category certificate for the reason that competent authority under Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act and Rules framed thereunder, denied them the same. The petitioners refer to several provisions of J & K Reservation Act, 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder, to claim to be fully qualified to obtain category certificate of ALC. It is stated that concerned Tehsildar rejected their applications for issuance of category certificates under ALC category, against which petitioners preferred an appeal. However, appellate authority did not agree with petitioners and upheld the order of Tehsildar, rejecting claim of petitioners for issuance of certificate of ALC. Petitioners, therefore, submit that matter is with regard to interpretation of Section 2(9) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act and challenge to rejection order passed by Tehsildar and upheld by appellate authority, is subject matter of adjudication in a separate writ petition, i.e. OWP No. 1717/2015. It is, however, not in dispute, as is otherwise apparent from the pleadings of petitioners, that they had not annexed ALC category certificates at the time of submission of application forms nor could they produce the same when selection process for admission was concluded and counseling was held by Respondent No. 1. Petitioners, therefore, submit that since they have been illegally deprived of issuance of ALC category certificate to which they are otherwise entitled to under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act and Rules framed thereunder, as such, Respondent No. 1 is bound to consider them under ALC category.

2. On the other hand, Respondent-Board represented by Mr. Asheesh Singh Kotwal contends that in terms of Notification dated 19.01.2016, online applications from eligible candidates belonging to different categories were invited to appear in the Common Entrance Test 2016 for admission to various professional courses (MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BUMS/Physiotherapy/Diploma Dental Hygiene/BE). The last date for submitting application forms fixed upto 20.02.2016, was extended upto 27.02.2016. Thus, cut off date for submission of online application forms as contended by respondents, was 27.02.2016 and no application forms were entertainable thereafter. So far as reserved category certificates are concerned, candidates were specifically advised to upload their self attested reserved category certificates while submitting their online application forms. Respondents in their objections refer to Instruction 5(3)(ix) of the Information Brochure 2016, wherein it was specifically indicated that if a candidate would fail to upload the reserved category certificate along with application form, his/her application form would be considered in the Open Merit Category only if he was otherwise found eligible. Referring to Instruction 5(4)(vi) of the Information Brochure 2016, it is submitted that if category certificate has not been issued by a designated competent authority, the candidate, claiming such category, cannot validate it after cut off date which was 27.02.2016 in the present case. Respondents further submit that as per own showing, ALC certificates were not issued in favour of petitioners nor the same was in their possession on the last date of submission of application forms nor at any time thereafter. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent-Board that