Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM
Puvvala Sujatha (Minor) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
W.Ps.Nos. 11997 and 12273 of 1998 and W.M.P. Nos. 17073, 17521 and 19954 of 1999
Decided On : 29 September 1999
JIPMER ADMISSION - RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT - VALIDITY - PONDICHERRY UNION TERRITORY RESIDENTS - DEFINITION - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION - CONCESSION FOR SELECTION - NOT RESERVATION UNDER ARTICLE 15(4) OR 16(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a minor represented by her father, applied for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course at JIPMER, a Central Government institution. She claimed to be a resident of Pondicherry and eligible for the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste quota. However, she did not submit a residence certificate as required by the prospectus. The second respondent refused to admit her to the course on this ground.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had made a false statement in her application by claiming to be a Pondicherry Scheduled Caste. She had also submitted herself on that basis and written the entrance examination and attended the interview. Now, it was not open to her to go back and challenge the definition clause in the prospectus.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the eligibility condition of being a resident of Pondicherry Union Territory for at least five years immediately preceding the date of application? 2. Whether the definition of Pondicherry Union Territory residents in the prospectus was contrary to law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had not satisfied the eligibility condition of being a resident of Pondicherry Union Territory for at least five years immediately preceding the date of application. She had made a false statement in her application and had also submitted herself on that basis for the entrance examination and interview. 2. The court held that the definition of Pondicherry Union Territory residents in the prospectus was not contrary to law. It was a concession shown by the Central Government for selection of candidates from the Union Territory and not a reservation under Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.
The Order of the Court was as follows :
Both these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner. In the first writ petition, she has prayed for a direction to the second respondent Director, JIPMER to admit her to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1999-2000. In the second writ petition, she has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash Para No. 3.5.1 of the Prospectus issued by the Director, JIPMER and to set aside the selection of the fourth and fifth respondents to the First year M.B.B.S. Course.
2. Petitioner is a minor represented by her father. Petitioner's father is working as Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Works Department in Andhra Pradesh. He claims that Yanam is his native place. However, the third respondent Deputy Collector, Yanam refused to issue the Residence Certificate to the petitioner.
3. Petitioner participated in the Entrance Examination held for selection to the M.B.B.S. Course and got 108 marks. Her name is included in the merit list of the Scheduled Caste quota earmarked for Pondicherry Region. Petitioner was directed to appear for an interview with her original certificates. She appeared for the interview and was placed in the fifth rank for the Scheduled Caste Pool, Pondicherry. However, she was not allowed to join the course on the ground that she had not submitted her Residence Certificate. Hence, the above writ petitions.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit where it is stated that Jawaharlal Institute of Post-graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER) Pondi-cherry is a Central Government institution financed and administered by the Ministry of Family Welfare, Government of India. This institute is affiliated to Pondi-cherry University. There are 75 seats in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. For admission in the five categories of students, notification was made in January/February 1999 and 5-5-99 was the last date for receipt of the applications. The entrance examination was held on 6-6-99. Even though some of the candidates did not enclose all the certificates, they were provisionally admitted to appear for the entrance examination. More than 21,000 candidates submitted their applications for admission. As per the provisions of the prospectus, the candidates who have appeared and who will be appearing for the qualifying examination in May, 1999 and whose results have not been declared can also apply for admission if they are otherwise eligible. They will however be admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course only if they produce all the original certificates and satisfy the requirement. The candidates should specify to which category they are applying. Para 3.5.1 of the prospectus defines Pondi-cherry Union Territory residents. In the application submitted by the petitioner on 20-4-99, she had not filled the column under Sl. No. 11(6) of the application form and at page 2, Sl. No. 12(b) petitioner filled the column as April, 1999 (i.e. appearing for the examination in April 1999). The fourth page of the application is neither filled by the applicant nor certified by the authority for her claim to be considered for the Pondicherry reserved seat. Though she had claimed at page 1 against Sl. No 9 petitioner had not enclosed the residence certificates ? with her application. Petitioner had written a letter dated 5-7-99 undertaking to submit her nativity certificate in the prescribed form within a week's time. In the light of her performance in the entrance examination, she was placed at Sl. No. 5 under the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category subject to vertification of all original certificates and on fulfillment of other requirements as mentioned in the prospectus. In the interview card, it was specifically mentioned that selection is provisional subject to verification. When the candidate and her father were asked about the non-submission of her residence certificate, they have stated that they would submit the same afterwards and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
