Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 800 of 1957

Attorney(S)

P.A. Chowdary and Srimathi P. Venkayamma
The Govt. Pleader (M. Seshachalapathi)

Judges

K. Subba Rao, C.J
Srinivasachari, J.

Acts

Medical Colleges. RULE 11 : Qualifications : RULE 13

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 1022, Health, dated 30-5-1957, and to admit the petitioner to the Medical College, Visakhapatnam.

Key facts, as presented in the opinion:

The petitioner was born at Vijayawada on 17 December 1939. Soon after his birth his mother was taken ill and the petitioner was taken to Visakhapatnam where he lived with his grandmother for an extended period and attended St. Joseph's Convent, Waltair from January 1945 to July 1948 (lower K.G. to second standard).
From 1948 to 1956 he studied in Vijayawada and visited Visakhapatnam during vacations. He passed his Intermediate examination in 1956 with 60.2% in Biology, Chemistry and Physics.
In 1956 he applied for a seat in the Medical College with a nativity certificate stating his place of residence as Krishna District; that application was not considered because he was underage.
In June 1957 he again applied for admission to Medical College (Andhra area, Region I) and furnished a nativity certificate stating residence in Visakhapatnam (Region I) for the prescribed period.
The Selection Committee included him in a preliminary list (initially ranked 15th). After interview (where he was allegedly given 40% for personality/extracurricular), his rank rose to 5th and his name was submitted for Government decision on the validity of the nativity certificate.
On 25-9-1957 the petitioner’s father requested immediate disposal of the case. On 10-10-1957 the Secretary, Public Health Department received a telegram from the petitioner’s advocate. By letter dated 18-10-1957 the Government sought documentary proof of residence in Visakhapatnam for the relevant period. The advocate replied on 4-11-1957 enclosing a school certificate and affidavits. Before Government decided, the petitioner filed this writ.
The petition sought mandamus to compel respondents to follow G.O. Ms. No. 1022 and admit the petitioner; the Government had not reached a definite conclusion on the nativity certificate by the time of filing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether noncompliance with the procedure prescribed by G.O. Ms. No. 1022 (dated 30-5-1957) entitles the petitioner to a writ of mandamus directing admission to the Medical College.
Whether the Selection Committee or the Government had power to withhold publication of the petitioner’s name as a selected candidate on the basis of questioning the nativity certificate, or whether the duty to verify the nativity certificate rested with the Principal at the time of admission.
Whether the rules in G.O. Ms. No. 1022 are merely administrative directions not conferring enforceable rights on an applicant, or whether the scheme must be treated as the basis for ascertaining candidates’ rights until suitably modified by Government.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The respondents did not follow the procedure laid down by the rules in G.O. Ms. No. 1022 dated 30-5-1957.
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with those rules and to admit him to the Medical College.

Respondents’ (Government) Arguments

The Government Pleader contended that the rules in G.O. Ms. No. 1022 are only administrative directions and that noncompliance with such rules does not confer on the petitioner a right to compel the respondents to proceed in strict conformity with them.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds from the text and scheme of G.O. Ms. No. 1022 and the undisputed factual chronology. The key steps of the court's reasoning were:

The court described the purpose and provisions of the rules in G.O. Ms. No. 1022 as a scheme to provide equitable distribution of Medical College seats across regions and different strata of the population, consistent with the Constitution. The scheme cannot be ignored or selectively relied upon by Government to the petitioner’s prejudice.
The court extracted and explained the relevant rules and procedures (as recited in the opinion):
- Rule 4: A Selection Committee, appointed by Government, draws up a preliminary list in order of merit and confines interviews to double the number of seats; interviews are for verifying data relevant to extra-curricular marks; selections by the Committee are final.
- Rule 9: Regional distribution of seats (Regions I, II and III defined; Region I includes Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam; Region II includes Guntur, Krishna, East and West Godavari; Region III includes Nellore, Cuddapah, Kurnool, Anantapur and Chittoor).
- Rule 13 and the Declaration Form: The selected list is published provisionally; at actual admission the candidate (or parent/guardian) must sign a declaration affirming the correctness of the information and acknowledging criminal consequences and forfeiture of seat for material falsehoods; Principals must quickly verify nativity certificates and marks before admission and keep originals for enquiry.
- Appendix II: A revised form of nativity certificate specifying residence in the district for a total period of ten years immediately preceding 1 January last, exclusive of periods spent in other districts for studies in specified circumstances.
The court observed that under the scheme the nativity certificate issued by the prescribed officer is prima facie accepted for the selection process; the Selection Committee is not entrusted with the duty of inquiring into the correctness of nativity certificates — that duty is expressly placed on the Principal at the time of actual admission to verify the certificates and authenticity of marks.
Applying these principles to the facts, the court concluded:
- The prescribed officer had issued a nativity certificate stating the petitioner was a resident of Region I; the Selection Committee ranked and selected the petitioner on that basis (final selection by the Committee and provisional publication contemplated by the rules).
- Neither the Selection Committee nor the Government had the power, under the rules, to withhold publication of the petitioner’s name as a selected candidate; verification and final determination on the nativity certificate were matters for the Principal at admission.
- Because the Government and Principal had not come to a definite conclusion and had not discharged the duties enjoined by G.O. Ms. No. 1022, the petitioner was entitled to relief consistent with the scheme.
The court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the substantive correctness of the nativity certificate; that question was left for the Principal to decide at the time of admission on the material available to him.
The court noted that other points raised by the petitioner’s counsel were not necessary to decide in view of the disposition on the main question.

Holding and Implications

PETITION ALLOWED

Direct effect on the parties (as stated in the opinion):

The respondents are directed to publish the name of the petitioner as one of the selected candidates.
At the time of admission the Principal (1st respondent) must satisfy himself on the material available to him regarding the correctness of the nativity certificate produced by the petitioner; if the Principal is satisfied, the petitioner shall be given one of the available seats (the opinion notes there is at least one unfilled seat). If the Principal is not satisfied, he may refuse to give the seat.
The petition is allowed with costs. Advocate's fee of Rs. 100/- was awarded.

The court did not lay down any broader precedent beyond applying the existing scheme in G.O. Ms. No. 1022 to the facts; it explicitly declined to express any opinion on the ultimate correctness of the nativity certificate, leaving that assessment to the Principal at admission.

Show full summary ...

Katragadda Ganganna Being Minor By Next Friend N. Venkatasubbamma v. The Principal, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam And Another

Judgement

K. SUBBA RAO, C.J. : -

This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 1022 Health, Dated 30-5-1957 and to admit the petitioner in the Medical College, Visakhapatnam.

2The petitioner is the son of Katragadda Raghuramaiah, who is a resident of Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The petitioner was born at Vijayawada on 17th December, 1939. Soon after the birth of the petitioner, the petitioners mother Anasuyamma was taken seriously ill and her mother took her along with the child to Visakhapatnam for medical treatment. Anasuyamma was treated for over a period of two years at Visakhapatnam and even thereafter the petitioner continued to live with his grand-mother at Visakhapatnam. He was also educated in St. Josephs Convent, Waltair in standards lower K. G. to second (inclusive) from January, 1945 to July, 1948.

It appears that, from 1948 to 1956, he was studying in Vijayawada and was going for the vacations to Visakhapatnam. He passed his Intermediate examination in the year 1956 and secured 60.2 per cent of the marks in his group-Biology, Chemistry and Physics. In 1956, the petitioner filed an application for a seat in the Medical College accompanied by a nativity certificate and, in that application, he gave his place of residence as Krishna District. It is said that the application was not considered as he was underage. He again applied for admission in the Medical College, Andhra area, from Region (1) in the month of June, 1957. Along with that application, the petitioner furnished a nativity certificate to the effect that he was a resident of Visakhapatnam in Region (1) for the prescribed period.

He was included in the preliminary list of candidates drawn up by the Selection Committee as eligible for admission from Region (1) and he was given 15th rank in that list. In due course, he was asked by the Selection Committee to appear for an interview before it. The Selection Committee, it is alleged, gave him 40 per cent presumably for his personality and extracurricular activities and that raised his rank from the 15th to the 5th. The Chairman of the Selection Committee along with other names submitted the petitioners name for the decision of the Government on the question of the validity of the nativity certificate.

By letter dated 25-9-1957, the father of the petitioner requested the Secretary, Public Health Department that his sons case may be disposed of immediately. On 10th October, 1957, the Secretary, Public Health Department received a telegram from Sri P. A. Chowdary Advocate questioning the acts of the Government and its subordinates in interfering with the petitioners selection to the Medical College. By a letter dated 18th October, 1957, the Government requested Sri P. A. Chowdary to furnish documentary evidence to show that his client actually resided in the District of Visakhapatnam for 11 years or at least for a total period of 10 years preceding 1st January, 1957 excluding periods spent by him on his education elsewhere. In reply to the aforesaid communication, Sri P. A. Chowdary wrote a letter dated 4th November, 1957 enclosing therewith a certificate from St. Josephs Convent and a few affidavits from residents of Visakhapatnam. Before the Government gave its decision, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed by the rules made by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1022 dated 30-5-1957. The Government Pleader counters this argument by stating that the rules are only administrative directions given by the Government and that noncompliance with the rules does not confer on the petitioner any right to compel the respondents to proceed in strict conformity with the rules. The contention of the Government is a double-edged weapon and it cuts both ways. The rules framed by the Government lay down a scheme for the selection of students to the Medical College in an attempt to provide an equitable distribution of seats for different regions and to different strata of the population in the State without violating the provisions of the Constitution.

If the rules can be ignored, the entire selection of candidates would be bad for every candidate then will have the right to take his chance in the common pool. The Government, therefore, cannot rely upon the scheme embodied in the rules to sustain the selections and to ignore it to defeat the claims of the petitioner. The scheme, therefore, till it is suitably modified by the Government must be taken as the basis for ascertaining the rights of the petitioner.

4. The rules forming part of the scheme of selection, so far as they are material to the present case, may be read :

RULE 4 : Selection to the seats available after deducting the number specified in Rr. 2 and 3 from the overall total will be made by a selection committee consisting of members duly appointed by the Government in this behalf. Subject to the reservation and procedure specified hereinafter, Orders will issue separately regarding the constitution of the committee. The Committee shall draw up, in order of merit, a preliminary list of candidates eligible for admission and shall confine its interviews to double the number of seats available. These interviews shall only be for the purpose of verifying the data on which marks for extra curricular activities are allotted. The selections made by the Committee shall be final.

RULE 9 : Regional distribution of seats : -

(a) For purposes of selection, the Andhra areas shall be divided into three groups of districts or regions as indicated below :

REGION I : comprising of the districts of Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam.

REGION II : comprising of the districts of Guntur, Krishna, East Godavari and West Godavari.

REGION III : comprising of the districts of Nellore, Cuddapah, Kurnool, Anantapur and Chittoor.

RULE 10 : Procedure for selection : The selection committee will adopt the following procedure for the selection of candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges.

RULE 11 : Qualifications :

RULE 13 : The list of candidates selected for admission shall be published only provisionally and each candidate if a major or his parent or guardian if he is a minor on admission shall be required to sign a written declaration in the following form :

DECLARATION FORM :

I, hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm that the statements made and information furnished in my/my sons or wards application form as also in all the enclosures thereto submitted by me/him are true. Should it however be found that any information furnished therein is untrue in material particulars, I realise that I am liable to criminal prosecution and I also agree to forego my seat/that he should forego his seat in the College.

The Principals of the Medical Colleges concerned should at the time of the actual admission of the students obtain the above declaration and in the meantime take steps to verify quickly the correctness of the nativity certificates and also the authenticity of the marks produced. The Principals should take full responsibility in this matter and they should keep the originals of all the applications and the declarations in safe custody for the purpose mentioned and in order to facilitate any enquiry which might become necessary as a result of inaccuracies being brought to light.

APPENDIX II :

Revised form of nativity certificate to be produced by candidates for admission to Medical Colleges in the Andhra area :

Certified that.............a candidate for admission into the Medical College..............son/ daughter of .........................resided in the district of ................... for a total period of ten years immediately preceding the 1st of January last exclusive of the period spent in any other district or districts, by the candidate for his/her studies with his/her parent while the latter was employed in Government service, or was engaged in any occupation, trade, business or profession and consequently that....................is a native of the district of............ within the meaning of G. O. No. 2786 Public Health dated the 27th October, 1945."

4The gist of the aforesaid rules may be stated thus. A candidate for admission in a Medical College with prescribed qualifications applies for a seat. Along with the application, he sends a nativity certificate in the prescribed form issued by an officer duly authorised in that behalf. The Selection Committee, after receiving the applications, draws up in the order of merit a preliminary list of candidates eligible for admission and shall confine it 3 interviews to double the number of seats available. The interviews are expressed to be for the purpose of verifying the data on which marks for extra curricular activities are allotted. The selections are final.

Thereafter, the list of candidates selected shall be published provisionally. At the time of admission, the Principal of the Medical College takes a declaration from the candidate or his parent as the case may be vouching to the correctness of the information in the application and also expressing his realisation that, in the case of false information, he is liable to criminal prosecution and to forfeiture of the seat. The Principal of the Medical College should take immediate steps before admission to verify quickly the correctness of the nativity certificate and also the authenticity of the marks produced.

5.It is seen from the aforesaid provisions that the scheme of selection and admission does not contemplate any enquiry as regards the correctness of the particulars given in the nativity certificate either by the Selection Committee or by the Government. The nativity certificate given by the prescribed officer is prima facie accepted as correct and the selection is proceeded with on that basis. It is not one of the duties of the Selection Committee to question the nativity certificate. That duty is entrusted only to the Principal before admitting the students.

6. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is clear that the prescribed officer gave the nativity certificate to the petitioner to the effect that he was a resident of Region (1). The petitioner was given the 5th rank in the list prepared by the Selection Committee on the basis of his marks obtained in the Intermediate Examination and those given to him on the foot of his personality and extra-curricular activities. Neither the Election Committee nor the Government had power to with-hold the publication of his name as one of the selected candidates. It was the Principal, on the material gathered by him at the time of admission that should have decided the correctness of the nativity certificate. In this case, neither the Government nor the Principal came to any definite conclusion on the correctness of the nativity certificate. It follows that the respondents did not discharge the duties enjoined on them under G. O. No. 1022 dated 30-5-1957.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised many other points and in the view we are taking on the main question, it is not necessary to express our view thereon. In the circumstances, we issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish the name of the petitioner as one of the selected candidates and the 1st respondent will, at the time of admission, satisfy himself on the material available to him on the question of the correctness of the nativity certificate produced by the petitioner. We should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the correctness of the nativity certificate for it is the duty of the Principal to do so. If he is satisfied with the correctness of the nativity certificate, he will give the petitioner one of the seats which we are told has not been filled up in the College. If he is not satisfied, he may refuse to give him the seat.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100/-.

Petition allowed.

Katragadda Ganganna ... v. The Principal, Andhr...