KUM VEENA MANOHAR G vs. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No.23006/2012 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: Kum. Veena Manohar G, D/o Sri Manohar R.G, Age 18 years, Occ: Student, Add: C/o Nandi Sugars, Krishnanagar, Post Hosur-587 117 District Bijapur. …Petitioner (By Sri Venkatesh P.Dalwai, Advocate) AND: The Executive Director, Karnataka Examination Authority, Sampige Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-12. … Respondent (By Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to attend CET counseling for the academic year 2012-13 under 2A category in terms of Annexure-E. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

2 O R D E R The petitioner has sought mandamus to the respondent to permit the petitioner to attend the Common Entrance Test (CET) counseling for the academic year 2012-13 under 2A category in terms of the caste certificate at Annexure-E. 2. Sri Venkatesh P.Dalwai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted the application to the respondent to appear for the CET. In the application, the petitioner has shown her category as 3A. The petitioner belongs to Banjiga caste. Earlier it was falling in 3A category. From 16.7.2011 Banjiga caste is shifted from 3A to 2A category. The caste-certificate issuing authority, without noticing this change, has issued the 3A certificate to the petitioner. As the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the mistakes of the authorities, he prays for a direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as belonging to 2A category. In support his submission that the reservational claim is a fundamental right, he relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of BASHESHAR NATH v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI AND RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1959 SC 149.

3 3. Sri N.K.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that no change in the category is permissible as per clause 8 of the instructions in the CET brochure. Clause 8 reads as follows: “8. The information furnished in the CET-2012 application form with regard to Caste/Category and Annual Income remains the same for the purpose of assignment of ranks/allotment of a seat and no change will be entertained in future for any reason.” 4. He also brings to my notice Note No.2 in the application form, which reads as follows: “2. The CASTE and INCOME certificate to be produced by candidates during seat selection process should have the same CASTE and INCOME, as mentioned in this Application Form. No change in Caste/Category will be permitted at any point of time.” 5. He submits that the caste verification process is completed and at this juncture the question of shifting the petitioner’s candidature from 3A to 2A would interrupt the whole ongoing process. He also submits that this Court, by its order, dated 3.7.2012 passed in W.P.No.22026/2012 has negatived the similar claims for the change in the reservation status.

4 6. Clause 8 in the brochure and Note No.2 in the application form contain the embargo on the change of reservation category. They state that the change in the category would not be entertained for any reason and at any point of time. The conditions stipulated in the instructions (CET Brochure in the instant case) cannot be re-written in the writ jurisdiction, as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench, by its judgment, dated 31.5.2012 passed in W.A.Nos.2579/2012 and 2581-2591/2012. 7. Although the Government Order shifting Banjiga from 3A to 2A is issued on 16.7.2011, the petitioner has not got the category certificate corrected. There was a gap of about 8 months between the Government Order, dated 16.7.2011 and the filing of the applications in March 2012. Thus, not finding any reason for my interference, I dismiss this petition. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE MD