Back
2001 Supreme(Ori) 36
High Court Of Orissa
P. C. NAIK
ROHIT CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION SUB-COMMITTEE, JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION E AND M-2000, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, SAMBALPUR - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. CASE 7858 Of 2000
Decided On : 01/30/2001
A.MISHRA, B.P.ROY, B.SAHU, B.SVAIN, D.B.SVAIN, J.A.REDDY, P.K.PATNAIK, R.K.DAS, R.K.MOHAPATRA, S.Kar Bhowmik, S.Pujari
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement for submitting certificates under Clause 2.2.2(i) of the Information Brochure, and the determination that the petitioner had complied with the requirement by submitting a permanent resident certificate.
Headnote:
Mutilation - Admission to Engineering Courses - Orissa Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984 - Clause 2.2.2(i)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was not permitted to participate in the counselling for admission to Engineering Courses in the State of Orissa due to the rejection of his candidature based on the alleged mutilation of the certificates submitted by him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the scoring through of irrelevant parts of the certificates did not amount to mutilation, and the petitioner had complied with the requirement of submitting a permanent resident certificate. The court also directed the authorities to consider the cases of all candidates who had submitted either a permanent resident certificate or a nativity certificate in the prescribed format for counselling for admission to the Course in question.
Issues: The main issue was whether the certificates submitted by the petitioner were in accordance with the requirement of Clause 2.2.2(i) of the Information Brochure, and whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the meaning of 'mutilate' and 'ordinarily resides' as used in the relevant rules and found that the petitioner had complied with the requirement of submitting a permanent resident certificate. The court also clarified that the requirement was to submit either a permanent resident certificate or a nativity certificate, not both.
Final Decision: The writ application was allowed to the extent that the authorities were directed to consider the cases of all candidates who had submitted either a permanent resident certificate or a nativity certificate in the prescribed format for counselling for admission to the Course in question.
P. C. NAIK, J.
( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ application is to the inaction of the opposite party by not permitting/allowing the petitioner to participate in the counselling for admission to the Engineering Courses in the State of Orissa.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the petition are that in response to an advertisement that was issued, the petitioner submitted an application to appear at the Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical) 2000 for admission into Engineering stream. It is the case of the petitioner that as his application form was in order he was issued an Admit Card, copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition on the basis of which he appeared at the said Examination of the B. J. B. College Centre, Since he succeeded in the written test he was issued a Call Letter to appear at the counselling scheduled to be held at Bhubaneswar on 9-8-2000. The petitioner went to Bhubaneswar and though the authorities collected the Call Letter from him and though the petitioner submitted the residential certificate issued to him by the Tahsildar, Jatni, he was not permitted to participate in the counselling. He was however, informed, though not in writing, that as the certificate submitted by him was mutilated, he could not be permitted to participate in the counselling.
( 3 ) THE petition was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that as the certiticate produced by the petitioner had been mutilated and had not been filled up as per the requirement, the same was not accepted by the Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee and as such, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the counselling on 9-8-2000. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, it has been averred that the "candidature of the petitioner was rejected because the resident/nativity certificate produced by him has been mutilated. The word "nativity" has been scored through in the certificate Appendix-I (Form No. III ). Further the portion "is a native of the District of. . . . in the State of Orissa and " in the resident/nativity certificate has been scored through by the Tahsildar which indicates that the petitioner is not a native of Orissa. Since the Appendix-I (Form No. III) resident/nativity certificate has not been completely filled up and has been scored through, the same was not accepted by the Chairman, Admission sub-committee and the petitioner's candidature was rejected. The other eligible candidates who were below the rank of the petitioner took admission and the seat commensurate with the rank of the petitioner was filled up. Therefore, the writ application has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
( 4 ) IT is also the case of the opposite party that even though the petitioner's name was there in the merit list, he was not entitled to participate in the counselling after defect was subsequently detected in the documents furnished by him. Reliance was also placed on Clause 2. 17 of the Information Brochure which provides,"mere appearance of the Roll Numbers in the published merit list or receipt of a call letter does not necessarily entitle a candidate to admission unless a seat is available commensurate with his/her merit position and unless the candidate also qualifies in all respects"it is also alleged that as the certificate produced by the petitioner did not indicate about his permanent residence or that he is a native of Orissa, he was rightly not permitted to participate in the counselling.
( 5 ) WHAT is, therefore, to be determined in this writ application is, whether or not the certificates issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner copies whereof are Annexures - 3 and 4 the writ petition were in accordance with the requirement of Clause 2. 2. 2 (i) of the Information Brochure, and whether or not the said certificates being mutilated, were liable to be rejected.
( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding further, Clause 2. 2. 2 (i) of the Information Brochure, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding this case may be qu
