IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
M. Goutham - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary/Addl. DME Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P.No.16389 of 2018 & WMP. Nos.19543 & 19544 of 2018
Decided On : 06-07-2018
Writ Petition - Inclusion in MBBS/BDS Rank List - Nativity Certificate - [NEET, Nativity Certificate, Prospectus] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking inclusion in the MBBS/BDS rank list based on the interpretation of the nativity certificate and the prospectus. The court held that nativity cannot be based solely on the place of birth and must consider the candidate's residence and education. The court referred to the Prospectus Clause 3(f) and the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'nativity' in a similar case to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought inclusion in the MBBS/BDS rank list for Tamil Nadu based on a nativity certificate, claiming to be a resident of Tamil Nadu despite studying in Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's nativity certificate did not establish Tamil Nadu residency as per the Prospectus Clause 3(f) and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Interpretation of nativity for MBBS/BDS rank list inclusion.
Ratio Decidendi: Nativity for MBBS/BDS rank list inclusion cannot be based solely on place of birth but must consider the candidate's residence and education, as per the Prospectus Clause 3(f) and Supreme Court precedent.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking inclusion in the MBBS/BDS rank list was dismissed.
1. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition to issue writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to include petitioner's name in the rank list for MBBS/BDS courses 2018-19 (Government quota) at appropriate place as per applicable rules on the basis of 424 marks scored by him in NEET exam-2018 and consequently direct the respondents to call the petitioner for MBBS/BDS counseling and consider petitioner's name as against the available MBBS/BDS Government quota seats in the Tamil Nadu.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was born at Karur on 05.06.2000 and belongs to Kongu Vellalar, a Backward Class community. The petitioner submits that he studied 10th class in CBSE syllabus at kottayam and completed his 12th std in the year 2017. The petitioner further submits that he secured 424/720 marks in the NEET (UG) Exams -2018. It is submitted by the petitioner that his name was not included in the ranking list and he is not aware of his ranking. He has further stated that his enquiry with regard to non inclusion of his name went unheeded. With regard to this, he has made representation to the authorities concerned and since there is no response, he has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition for the above said relief.
3. According to the petitioner, his father and mother have studied only upto 8th standard and that in view of Nativity Certificate dated 14.05.2018 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Kottayam, Kerala, it is clear that the petitioner is a resident of Tamil Nadu and he prays that his name may be considered for counseling. According to the word “nativity” it refers to the place of birth and when a person is born at Tamil Nadu, it can be considered as origin of Tamil Nadu and his father was working in Kerala and that the petitioner being child and no other option but to study in Kerala and that alone could not give any right to the respondents to disapprove his seat in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is a native of Tamil Nadu and for that the petitioner has produced a Ration Card in terms of clause 3(f) of Prospectus for admission to MBBS/BDS Course of the year 2018-19.
4. In reply, it has been stated that the petitioner has studied in Kottayam District, Kerala and his entire education was completed at Kottayam. The petitioner has not enclosed any certificate as required in Clause 3(f) of the Prospectus. The candidate should be a native of Tamil Nadu to invoke Clause 3(f) of the Prospectus. When a student studied at Kottayam and even going by the Certificate dated 14.05.2018, it is clear that the petitioner is said to be residing in Kerala for 20 years.
5. According to the respondents, firstly, the said certificate dated 14.05.2018 was issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Kottayam, Kerala and secondly, it is stated therein that the petitioner is residing in Kerala for 20 years. Therefore, the candidate does not belong to the State of Tamil Nadu. Further, according to the respondents, the place of birth cannot give right of nativity and it is further submitted that it is open to the petitioner to have his case considered under the All India quota, but not in the State of Tamil Nadu quota.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born in Tamil Nadu as per the Birth Certificate dated 13.11.2000. The fact that petitioner has studied 10th Std in the year 2015 and completed 12th std in the year 2017 from Kerala, is not in dispute. Even though the petitioner has produced Ration Card (Smart Card) of the year 2017, which is prior to the date of the certificate dated 14.05.2018, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as candidature from the native of Tamil Nadu. The nativity certificate, at no stretch of imagination, can be based on the birth place. Birth place is where a person who lives along with brothers and sisters, but the place of the person where the education has been done and lived
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.