By consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order of the first respondent, dated 2.7.2009, and to direct the first respondent to issue Residence/Nationality certificate to the petitioners, as residents of Puducherry Union Territory.
3. The first petitioner, who is the mother of the second petitioner, had filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition for herself and on behalf of her daughter. The first petitioner has stated that she was born and brought up at Palloor in Mahe. Her father was a freedom fighter. She had completed her school education from the Government Girls High School, Palloor, and her college education from M.G.G.A. College, Mahe. She was married to one K.V.Balachandran, whose residence is at Tellicherry, Kerala State, on 16.5.1990. Even after her marriage she had continued to reside at Mahe, as she was the only daughter to her parents. Since they were aged and as they were having serious ailments she was residing with them at Mahe.
4. The first petitioner has stated that her daughter Ms.Bibina Balachandran is also a permanent resident of Palloor and her name is included in the Family Ration Card No.003556, issued in the year, 2005. Further, the second petitioner is also a member of the Government Library at Mahe, with membership No.3059. She had studied at St.Theresa School, Chalakkara, from L.K.G. to 3rd Standard. She had completed her plus two studies from Silver Hills School, Calicut. She was residing in the hostel, while pursuing her studies. After she had completed her examinations she has been residing with the first petitioner at Palloor. The second petitioner has made an application to include her name in the voter's list at Palloor and it is pending before the concerned authority.
5. It has been further stated that the first petitioner, being a resident of Navajothy, Palloor, Mahe, her name has been included in the Family Ration Card No.003556, the Voter's List and in the Election Identity Card No.PY/01/029/012088, dated 9.11.1994. It has been further stated that the second petitioner had applied for admission to the M.B.B.S course at the second respondent Institute, for the academic session 2009-2010. She had appeared for the entrance examination conducted, on 7.6.2009. Thereafter, the second petitioner has been provisionally short listed for admission to the M.B.B.S course, for the session 2009-2010, against P-UR Category, based on her performance in the entrance examination and in accordance with the merit list published, on 10.6.2009. The second petitioner has been called to appear for the counseling to be held, on 15.7.2009. At the time of the counseling, she has been asked to produce various certificates, including the Residence Certificate/Nationality Certificate issued by a revenue authority, not below the rank of Tahsildar, as she has claimed the medical seat under the P-UR quota. It has been further stated that the first petitioner had applied for Residence Certificate/Nationality Certificate, along with all the required documents showing proof thereof. The Village Administrative Officer, had also conducted an enquiry and on verification of the documents he was convinced about the residence of the petitioners. However, the first respondent had issued an order, dated 2.7.2009, rejecting the request of the petitioners stating that the petitioners have not shown that they have been physically residing at Mahe during the preceding 5 years. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr.P.Subramanian, the learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners had contended that the order passed by the first respondent, on the basis of the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, is not legal and therefore, it is invalid in the eye of law. The first respondent ought to have conducted an enquiry and he should have given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners before taking a decision rejecting the request of the petitioners. As such, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 2.7.2009, has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. In spite of sufficient documentary evidence the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 2.7.2009, holding that the petitioners have not shown sufficient proof, as being residents of Palloor in Mahe. The first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 2.7.2009, based on the report of the Village Administrative Officer concerned, without properly considering the records submitted by the petitioners, as proof of their residence at Palloor in Mahe.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had denied the claims made on behalf of the petitioners. He had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 2.7.2009, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, as it has been clearly held that they have been residing at Koilandy in Calicut District for the last eight years and therefore, they have not been residents of Palloor in Mahe. It has also been found that the first petitioner has been working as a teacher in a private school at Koilandy. Further, the second petitioner has been studying in a school at Calicut, by staying in a hostel. After her marriage with one Balachandran, a native of Tellicherry, she had resided at Tellicherry for a considerable period. Thereafter, she had shifted her residence to Koilandy in Calicut District, where her husband was working in a branch office of the Life Insurance Corporation.
8. It has been further stated that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 2.7.2009, has been passed based on the report submitted by the concerned Village Administrative Officer. A personal enquiry had also been conducted with the Revenue Inspector and the Deputy Tahsildar of the area. Further, as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Revenue, Government of Puducherry, for the issuance of a Residence Certificate, the candidates, whose parent or guardian should have been physically residing, continuously, in the Union Territory, at least for a period of five years preceding the date of the application. Mere possession of evidence like Ration Card, Election Identity Card etc., cannot be the sole criterion for the issuing of the Residence Certificate. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioners that they are residents of Palloor in Mahe, cannot be countenanced.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that even though the second petitioner might have been provisionally selected for the M.B.B.S course for the academic year 2009-2010, at Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research the said selection is subject to her producing all the necessary certificates and the documents on the date of the counseling. Unless such documents are produced the provisional admission of the second petitioner would stand, automatically, cancelled. There is no provision for extending the dates of the counseling already announced by the second respondent. It is clearly provided in the memorandum issued to the candidates that they are required to produce the necessary documents, in original and if the original certificates are found to be defective their admissions would be forfeited and they will not be considered for admission to the M.B.B.S.course. It has also been made clear that no extra time would be granted under any circumstances, for producing the original documents. Therefore, if the second respondent is unable to produce the Residence Certificate, as required in the prospectus issued by the second respondent, she should forfeit her provisional admission given to her. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court, at this stage. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. The first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 2.7.2009, based on the report of the Village Administrative Officer concerned and taking into consideration the findings of the personal enquiry conducted with the Revenue Inspector and the Deputy Tahsildar of the area concerned. Though the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no personal hearing had been given to the petitioners, by the first respondent, before he had passed the impugned order, dated 2.7.2009, it could not be shown that the said order is arbitrary or illegal. From the records available, it is seen that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 2.7.2009, based on the report of the Village Administrative Officer, and in view of the facts obtained from the personal enquiry conducted with the Revenue Inspector and the Deputy Tahsildar concerned. No reliable documents have been submitted on behalf of the petitioners to establish their claims that they have been residing at Palloor in Mahe for the past five years. Most of the documents submitted by the petitioners show that they relate to different periods prior to the year, 2000. When it has been specifically found by the first respondent that Ms.Beena, along with her family, had shifted to Koilandy in Calicut District, where her husband was working in the branch office of Life Insurance Corporation and that she has been residing at the said place, continuously, for the last eight years and that her daughter Ms.Bibina Balachandran has been studying in a school in Calicut staying in a hostel, the petitioners cannot claim that they have been continuously residing at Palloor in Mahe for the past five years or more. As per the prospectus of Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, the M.B.B.S course conducted in the said Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010 and from the memorandum issued to the candidates it is clear that the original certificates, including the Residence Certificate, should be produced by the candidates at the time of the counseling and that no extra time would be granted, under any circumstances, for producing the said certificates and documents. Since the Residence Certificate is one of the required documents, it is for the petitioners, who have obtained the same from the authorities concerned, to produce the same during the counseling for the M.B.B.S. Course, for the academic year 2009-2010, in Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research. Even though the impugned order of the first respondent is dated 2.7.2009, the petitioners have approached this Court, belatedly, just two days before the scheduled counseling date of 15.7.2009. Sufficient reasons have not been adduced on behalf of the petitioners for the delay in approaching this Court. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
csh To
1. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Government School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, Chennai 600 006