AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
(1) “To call for the records leading to Ext.P6 from the 3rd Respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6 to the extend it orders declining to issue IP Certificate to the petitioner to secure admission in the seats allotted for wards of insured persons in UG course (MBBS/BDS) in ESIC Medical/Dental and some Government Medical Colleges for the Academic Session 2023-24 as per Ext P3 and P4 that the petitioner being the daughter of Sri.Biju, Principal employer of the factory M/s. Faris Cahsew Factory where contribution is filed in respect of his wife Smt.Jasmine is illegal.
(II) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to issue IP Certificate to the petitioner to secure admission in the seats allotted for wards of insured persons in UG course (MBBS/BDS) in ESIC Medical/Dental and some Government Medical Colleges for the Academic Session 2023-24 as per Ext P3 and P4 in the light of Ext P2 certificate issued by the 3rd respondent within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) To declare that the petitioner is eligible and qualified and is entitled to get IP Certificate to secure admission in the seats allotted for wards of insured persons in UG course (MBBS/BDS) in ESIC Medical/Dental and some Government Medical Colleges for the Academic Session 2023-24 as per Ext P3 and P4 in the light of Ext P2 certificate issued by the 3 respondent.
(iv) To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced along with the above Writ Petition (Civil).
(v) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]
This writ petition is filed mainly challenging Ext.P6 order to the extent by which the Insured Person Certificate (IP certificate) is not issued to the mother of the petitioner for getting admission to the petitioner in the quota reserved for Medical Education as per Exts.P2 and P3.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner is an insured person under the respondents. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued to the petitioner in the last year for applying for the same course. Now, the same is rejected as per Ext.P6 stating that the father of the petitioner is the employer of the factory. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner only taken on lease the factory for a short period. That is not a reason to reject the IP certificate. I think there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The Standing counsel seriously opposed the above submission. The Standing Counsel submitted that the father of the petitioner is an employer and the mother is the employee. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled the IP certificate. I cannot agree with the same. It is an admitted fact that the mother of the petitioner is an insured person under the respondents. Simply because the father of the petitioner has taken on lease the factory premises, that is not a reason to reject the IP certificate to the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Ext.P6 is to be set aside and the matter is to be reconsidered by 3rd respondent.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner :
1) The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and issue IP certificate to the petitioner dehors the reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 forthwith.