A candidate sought Muslim quota admission to the three-year LL.B course through a belated Non Creamy Layer Certificate. The court declined interference and dismissed the appeal, holding that the delay was not excused and that suppression of earlier notifications barred equitable relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942
WA.No.1080 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16518/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12.8.2020
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
THASNEEM S.P AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. SATHAR M.K., MALIKULANGARA HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680518.
BY ADVS. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYA SHRI.ANOOP V.R.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGNS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.MANU FOR RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1080/20
2
'CR'
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2020
Manikumar, CJ
Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment in W.P.(C). No.16518 of 2020 dated 12.08.2020, by which, the writ court directed the 2nd respondent - Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, to consider, take up and pass orders on the request dated 10.08.2020 (Exhibit-P8), submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant, in accordance with law, at the earliest. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows:
applied for a three year LL.B Course, 2020. She scored 254 marks and obtained Rank No.325. She applied as a candidate belonging to SEBC, and eligible for reservation to Muslim quota. Commissioner for Entrance
W.A. No.1080/20
3
Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2, is having two websites with very similar names, i.e, www.cee-kerala.org and www.ceekerala.gov.in. On 17.07.2020, Exhibit-P3 notice was published in the website www.cee-kerala.org, requiring the candidates to cure the defects in the online application, on or before 16.07.2020, i.e, the date before publication of the results. The appellant was unable to cure the defect noted in her application, i.e., Non Creamy Layer Certificate was not uploaded, as the last date was over on the date of publication in the said website.
W.A. No.1080/20
4
A) Appellant has applied for three year LL.B Course by showing that she is eligible for reservation provided towards Muslim quota. The delay in curing the defect by her is not intentional and beyond her control. It is pertinent to note that, for curing the defect regarding non uploading of nativity certificate, as per Clause 6 of the Prospectus, for availing reservation is permitted to 12.08.2020. Therefore, considering as a special circumstance, this Court shall direct the 2nd respondent to accept Exhibit-P7 certificate submitted as per Exhibit-P8 email and provide to the appellant, the reservation quota for Muslims. However, the learned Single
W.A. No.1080/20
5
Judge has considered the issue and found that the last date was already over and, therefore, directed to consider the request of the appellant without allowing the prayer. It is formally disclosed that the office of the 2nd respondent has informed the appellant that her request is rejected.
B) Appellant has further contended that no prejudice would be caused to anyone, since the allotment is not yet started. Therefore, it is just and equitable to accept Exhibit-P7 certificate by the 2nd respondent or permit the appellant to upload the certificate to the official website of the 2nd respondent. In Chairman NRI Service and Educational trust v. Kerala University [2014 (3) KLT 212], this court has held that certificate can be accepted even at a later stage.
C) The appellant belongs to SEBC - Muslim and applied as eligible for reservation. There is no dispute in this fact. In Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and another [2016 KHC 6164], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if there is failure to submit OBC certificate before the last date, the candidature of such candidates could not be rejected simply on account of late submission of caste certificate. This position was adopted by this Court in Union of India and others v. Abdul Rasheed [2016 (5) KHC 129]. A Hon'ble Full Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Competent Authority, Entrance Examinations J & K and Another v. Mahesh Kumar Jia Lal Raina and Another [AIR 2016 J&K 90] and a Hon'ble Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in Princy Meshram v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another [AIR 2018 NOC 640], have considered the issue with respect to admission to MBBS Course and held that caste certificate can be considered after due date for production of the same. Even though there is a delay in submitting
W.A. No.1080/20
6
the Community-cum-Non Creamy Layer Certificate by the appellant, the same can be accepted by the 2nd respondent, especially when the physical certificate has to be produced before the college authorities at the time of admission, after completion of allotment process.
D) Appellant has further contended that she got rank No.325 in the entrance examination. Therefore, she will get admission to Government Law Colleges, if she is permitted to avail reservation towards Muslim quota. The denial of admission to her by not granting eligible reservation, amounts to violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 41A of the Constitution of India.
W.A. No.1080/20
7
Layer Certificate also mentioned). On 7.3.2020, notification was issued, inviting applications for the entrance examination to 3 year LLB Course 2020-2023.
W.A. No.1080/20
8
20.05.2020, 5 p.m. Thereafter, on 7.7.2020, a press release was issued, whereby the candidates were given one more opportunity to rectify the defects, by providing time till 16.07.2020.
W.A. No.1080/20
9
certificates, such as caste certificate (SC/ST category only) non-Creamy Layer Certificate (for the children of SEBC/OEC/interfaith marriage parents), income certificate (those category other than SC/ST/OEC and general category), nativity certificate (only those candidates whose school and birth certificates do not show place of birth), from the revenue authorities, well in advance, and must provide the same along with the online application, as directed.
W.A. No.1080/20
10
candidates, who have uploaded their certificates in time.
“No. CEE/71/2020/3LLB-2020/TA2
Government of Kerala
Office of the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations House Board Building, Santhi Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
PRESS RELEASE
Details of Entrance Examinations for admission to integrated 5 year LLB Courses/3 years LLB Course - 2020 have been published
The online Entrance Examinations for admission to integrated 5 year LLB Courses/3 year or the year 2020-21 shall be conducted as per the schedule below:
| Date of Examin | ations |
|---|---|
| Course | Date |
| Three year LLB | 25.04.2020 (Saturday) |
| Integrated Five year LLB | 26.04.2020 (Sunday) |
Those who intend to join the Government Law Colleges and Private Self Financing Colleges in Kerala for 3 year LLB Courses/integrated 5 year LLB Courses must attend the Entrance Examinations conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and qualify for the same. Those students included in the reservation categories and those who want reservation benefits must collect in advance caste certificate (SC/ST category only) nonCreamy Layer Certificate (for the children of SCBC/OEC/inter faith marriage parents), income certificate (those category other than
W.A. No.1080/20
11
SC/ST/OEC and general category), nativity certificate (only those candidates whose school and birth certificates do not show place of birth) from revenue authorities, keep those with them and must provide the same along with online application as directed.
Helpline No.0471 2525300
Thiruvananthapuram Sd/28.01.2020 Commissioner for Entrance Examinations”
2021 has been approved on 3.3.2020. Reservation is provided to many categories. As per the Prospectus, an important note is given that,-
defective or incomplete certificates will be rejected. Belated applications will not be accepted. Documents or certificates furnished after the last date fixed for submission of online applications will not be considered on any account. No candidate will be permitted to incorporate any additional details
in the application form or to submit any additional documents after the submission of the online application”.
W.A. No.1080/20
12
examinations to 3 year LLB Course 2020-2021 reads thus:
W.A. No.1080/20 13
W.A. No.1080/20 14
W.A. No.1080/20 15
W.A. No.1080/20
16
extending the date for submission of online application reads thus:
W.A. No.1080/20
17
publishing of provisional details of candidates reads thus:
W.A. No.1080/20
18
W.A. No.1080/20
19
W.A. No.1080/20
20
respondent, submitted by the appellant along with the writ petition is extracted hereunder:
W.A. No.1080/20
21
application for 3 year LLB Course, to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations through e-mail dated 9.8.2020 (Ext.P4), reads thus:
“The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations Fifth Floor, Housing Board Buildings Santhi Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
09th August, 2020
Dear Sir,
Sub:- RECTIFICATION OF DEFECT OF APPLICATION FOR THE 3 YEAR LLB. COURSE.
My name is Thasneem S.P., an applicant for the 3 year LLB entrance examination, bearing the application no.3102100 and roll no.57984, for the academic year 2020-2021. Due to the shortage of internet facility I had depended upon the Akshaya centre in my locality.
The press release from The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations regarding the rectification of defects in application had appeared on www.cee-kerala.org only on 17th July,2020, and the last date for any such rectification, was on 16th July 2020. I tried to login as soon as I found the notification, but due to the expiry of the cut off period, I was unable to login and rectify the defects of non creamy layer certificate in my application.
I have attached a screen shot of the www.cee-kerala.org, dated 09/08/2020, to bring into your kind notice that the result of entrance examination of 5 year LLB, 2020 which was published on 7th Aug., is not updated in www.cee-kerala.org as on 09/08/2020. The screen shot is only to draw your notice to the delay in updating the website www.cee- kerala.org.
I have been awarded a rank of 325 in the 3 year entrance examination of 2020, and I am afraid that, due to the defect in my application I might lose my chance for a reservation that I am entitled to.
The fact being brought to your notice is very genuine, and there was no negligence from my part, and I therefore humbly request your kind perusal and consideration for an approval for updating a creamy layer certificate in my application.
Yours faithfully,
Thasneem S.P.”
W.A. No.1080/20
22
inviting online options for allotment of 3 year LLB Course 2020-21, is extracted hereunder:
W.A. No.1080/20 23
W.A. No.1080/20
24
Officer, Punnayur (Ext.P7), showing that she belongs to Muslim community is extracted hereunder:
“Ref. File No.425/20/PNR
Office: PUNNAYUR Date: 10.08.2020
NON-CREAMYLAYER CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that THASNEEM S.P., D/O. SATHAR M.K., MALIKKULANGARA HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., PUNNAYUR Village, CHAVAKAD Taluk, Thrissur District, Kerala State belongs to the ISLAM religion MUSLIM Community, which is designated as Backward Class in the State of Kerala.
W.A. No.1080/20
25
This is also certify that above Sri. THASNEEM S.P., does not belong to the category of 'Creamy Layer' in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.(P). 81/2009/SC/ST/DD dated 26/09/2009 and the schedule prescribed there under to identify the 'Creamy Layer' among the designated 'Other Backward Classes' in the State of Kerala.
Official seal
Sd/VILLAGE OFFICE, PUNNAYUR-............”
the 2nd respondent through email is extracted hereunder:
“From THASNEEM S P Roll No.57984 Application No.3102100
To The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations Fifth Floor, Housing Board Buildings Santhi Nager, Thiruvananthapuram.
SUB: Request for uploading non-creamy layer certificates
Dear Sir,
This is with reference to my previous communication dated 09 August 2020, explaining the technical problem which I had encountered while rectifying the defect in my application on time. I would like to attach the non-creamy layer certificate for your kind perusal and request for your kind permission to upload the same.
Yours faithfully, Thasneem S.P
10-08-2020 Thrissur. …...............Forward message.................. From: Thasneem [email protected] Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020, 3.03 pm.”
W.A. No.1080/20
26
W.A. No.1080/20
27
notice was issued in the website requiring the candidates to cure the defects in the online applications, on or before 16.07.2020 and that on 8.8.2020, online options were invited. For reasons best known to the appellant, all the notifications issued from 28.01.2020 till 18.05.2020 have been conveniently omitted to be disclosed in the statement of facts, thus giving an impression to the court that only from 7.7.2020, time was given to rectify the defect.
(i) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 120], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 11 to 14, held as follows:
"11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question.
W.A. No.1080/20
28
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.
“1303. He who seeks equity must do equity. “In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed.
W.A. No.1080/20
29
The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no
W.A. No.1080/20
30
suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff's demerits.”
(ii) In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449], at Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, it has been held as follows:
“33. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter.
W.A. No.1080/20
31
is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied)
(iii) In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 1 SCC 560], at paragraphs 16 and 17, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as follows:
"16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.
W.A. No.1080/20
32
(iv) In Amar Singh v. Union of India & Others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69, on the aspect of a litigant approaching the court, with unclean hands, at, paragraphs 53 to 57, and at, paragraph 59, considered several judgments. Finally, at paragraph No.60, extracted a paragraph from Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others, [(2010) 2 SCC 114]:
"53. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with "unclean hands" and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.
"It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward."
W.A. No.1080/20
33
"…........and it has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts- facts, now law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement."
W.A. No.1080/20
34
and others (1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P. and others - (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI - (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar and others v. Union Bank of India - (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D.Sharma v. SAIL and others - (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others - (2009) 3 SCC 141, Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others - (2010) 2 SCC 114.
"For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya"(truth) and "ahimsa (non-violence), Mahavir, Gautam Budha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre- independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, postIndependence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
(v) In Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Others [(2013) 2 SCC 398], at paragraphs 32 to 36, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
W.A. No.1080/20
35
"32. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.
W.A. No.1080/20
36
under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”. (Refer: Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors. v. Munshi & Anr. [(1969) 1 SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) SCC 1 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. [(2011) 7 SCC 639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India & Anr. [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].
W.A. No.1080/20
37
extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court with clean hands.
W.A. No.1080/20
38
court by judgment dated 02.08.2020, dismissed the writ petition, wherein at paras 3 and 4, ordered thus:
“3. In my considered opinion, the admission to the M.B.B.S course is conducted in a time bound manner following the stipulations contained in the KEAM-prospectus 2019. There are certain directions of the Apex Court also in respect of the completion of the admission process. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner could not upload the certificate and the petitioner is putting the responsibility on the Tahsildar, who was failed to issue an EWS certificate. However, in my considered opinion if there was lethargy on the part of the Tahsildar, petitioner was duty bound to seek appropriate relief against the Tahsildar, in order to consider and dispose of the application submitted. Therefore on account of the delay on the part of the Tahsildar, no manner of negligence or latches on the part of the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations can be attributed by the petitioner.
W.A. No.1080/20
39
In the light of the above discussion and decisions, there is no error in the judgment impugned, warranting interference in appeal. Writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
Sd/- Shaji P. Chaly, Judge
sou./Krj.
2 issues framed by the court
Should a belated Non Creamy Layer Certificate be accepted for Muslim quota admission to the three-year LL.B course after publication of the category merit list?
Did nondisclosure of earlier notifications concerning certificate submission disentitle the appellant to equitable relief?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arunima Baruah v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶169
[(2007) 6 SCC 120] · Who else cites this
Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of IndiaRelied on¶184
[(2007) 8 SCC 449] · Who else cites this
Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another v. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶191
[(2008) 1 SCC 560] · Who else cites this
Amar Singh v. Union of India & OthersRelied on¶196
(2011) 7 SCC 69 · Who else cites this
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶196
[(2010) 2 SCC 114] · Who else cites this
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & OthersRelied on¶215
[(2013) 2 SCC 398] · Who else cites this
W.P.(C) No.20991 of 2019Referred¶229
THASNEEM S.P
STATE OF KERALA
COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
