Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.:— Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. It appears that though the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein had secured 99.9000288 percentile in the entrance examination and she was ranked 134 in the General (UR) category and further secured 987 marks out of 1000 in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate Examination, Andhra Pradesh, just because her on-line application for admission to M.B.B.S course for the academic year 2016-2017 had been submitted through her School/coaching centre viz., Sri. Chaitanya Narayana Junior College, Vijayawada, who committed an inadvertent mistake/error in the on-line application form, by stating that the petitioner belongs to Unreserved category instead of OBC category, even though the writ petitioner had obtained Other Backward Class Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, stating that she belongs to “Kummara” or “Kulala” or “Salivahana” (OBC), she could not get admission into the M.B.B.S Course under OBC category quota, for the academic year 2016-17. The Writ Petition filed by the 1 respondent herein was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 10.08.2016 Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/2nd respondent has filed the present Writ Appeal.
3. The learned Single Judge, by taking note of the fact that the in the first phase of counselling, 28 candidates belong to OBC category were called and as per the marks obtained by the writ petitioner, she should have been ranked 16th and whereas, only 8 of them had remained absent and therefore, the petitioner should have been moved up and but for the non-submission of the OBC certificate, she would have been selected under the said category. Further the learned Single Judge, by going through the specific case of the petitioner that she was issued with OBC Certificate by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department in AP 02 81579835, dated 29.01.2016 and that she does not belong to section of Creamy Layer mentioned in Column No. 3 of the schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training Proceedings dated 08.09.1993 etc, and by following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [(2016) 4 SCC 754] and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: 1992 Supp SCC (L&S) 1], held that it is purely an inadvertent mistake and even as per the counter affidavit of the 2 respondent, the petitioner had secured 99.9000288 percentile in the entrance examination and therefore, she cannot be deprived the benefit of reservation for joining the M.B.B.S Course for the year 2016-17.
4. Now, before this court, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent submitted that the 1 respondent attended counselling under OBC category in the M.B.B.S Course for the purpose of verification of documents in terms of the prospects issued by the 2 respondent.
5. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that while the 1 respondent furnished her on-line application only under Unreserved category, the admission sought for by her under OBC category, is in violation of the terms of the prospectus.
6. However, in this case, as noted by the learned Single Judge, reservation not sought under OBC in the on-line application is purely because of the inadvertent mistake of the institution, which filled up the form, however, necessary community certificates of the 1 respondent that she belongs to OBC category, has been produced before counselling. Further, even though the 1 respondent was hopeful in getting the seat even under Unreserved category, only by a fraction of marks in the total cut off marks, she could not get admission. However, she is very much eligible to be considered for admission as she holds Rank No. 16 in the OBC and if the writ petitioner/1 respondent herein is not considered for admission under OBC category, other rank holders behind her would get the opportunity for admission, which would only lead to anomaly and the meritorious candidate viz., the 1 respondent would be denied admission in the selection process.
7. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (i) Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [(2016) 4 SCC 754] and (ii) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: 1992 Supp SCC (L&S) 1], would come to the rescue of the 1 respondent, who is stated to be belonging to backward section of the society and the reservation is only meant to be addressed to the social, educational and economic backwardness.
8. The learned Single Judge, after going through the factual position directed the second respondent to take into consideration the status list after first round of counselling and if the writ petitioner come within the zone of consideration under OBC category, shall grant her admission into M.B.B.S Course under OBC category quota for the academic year 2016-2017 subject to fulfillment of other norms. In our view, the said direction was given after taking note of the other extraneous circumstances of the case and by following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court (cited supra). Such being the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, the decision taken by this court is on the consideration of extraneous facts and circumstances of the case and the same cannot be treated as precedent for other cases. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.