SYAM NATH.S V. UNION OF INDIA

OP (CAT)/175/2019

AI Insights

Syam Nath S, belonging to the Hindu-Ezhavathi community classified under OBC, initially applied for the UPSC Civil Services Examination under the general category due to the absence of a non-creamy layer certificate at the time of application. After obtaining the certificate post the publication of the rank list, he sought to change his category to OBC to be considered for his preferred service, the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), instead of being allocated to the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group (A). His request was denied by the Union of India and the UPSC, leading him to approach the CAT, which also dismissed his application. The High Court's dismissal of his OP was based on the grounds that such a retroactive change would unsettle the appointments already made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 733982 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, Union of India v. Abdul Rasheed
• Laws Referred To: Civil Services Examination Rules, 2016, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MINI GOPINATH; THOMAS NELLIMOOTTIL; P N SANTHOSH
• Assessee Lawyers: C UNNIKRISHNAN; D JAYAKRISHNAN; SANJAY JOHNSON; S BIJU
• Keywords: Fundamental rights; OBC reservation; Non-creamy layer certificate; UPSC Civil Services Examination; Category change
• Section: 22; 15; 25; 19; 21; 16

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1942 OP (CAT).No.175 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 252/2018 DATED 26-03-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE OA: SYAM NATH.S AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SYAM SUNDER. G. SYAM NIVAS, TC 3-149-1, PARUTHIPPARA, MUTTADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 025. BY ADVS. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE OA: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, SOUTH BLOCK, MAN SINGH ROAD, AREA, NEW DELHI 110 069. OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:2:- 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 4 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT, AYYANKALI BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, KANAKA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM 695 003. 5 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING TRIVANDRUM 695 033. 6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM 695 043. R1 BY SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC R2 BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC UPSC R3-6 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2020, THE COURT ON 22-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:3:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2020 Shaffique, J. In this Original Petition, petitioner challenges order dated 26/3/2019 in OA No.252/2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), by which his application was dismissed. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination and his first preference was to Indian Foreign Service (IFS). However, he was allocated to the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group (A). 3. Petitioner's contention was that he belonged to Hindu- Ezhavathi Community which comes under Other Backward Classes (OBC). Petitioner applied under the general category, since according to him, he was prevented from claiming reservation benefit under OBC on account of denial of non- creamy layer certificate. Petitioner was issued with a non-creamy layer certificate only on 6/6/2017. The ranked list was published on 31/5/2017 and the petitioner was allotted rank No.345. He further submits that one Mr.Varun Yadav who was belonging to OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:4:- OBC category having Rank No.615 was allotted IFS. After obtaining a non-creamy layer certificate, petitioner filed a representation to the Union of India and Union Public Service Commission seeking intervention and his request was to provide him the benefit of reservation and an opportunity to serve IFS. When his attempts for change of category turned futile, he approached the Tribunal inter alia challenging Annexures A12 and A23 and for a direction to allow category change of the applicant from general to OBC in the light of the non-creamy layer certificate issued in his favour and to allocate him his first choice of IFS after reallocating the rank list based on his OBC status. The Tribunal by the impugned order having observed that as the petitioner had submitted his application under the general category, and having not made any claim for being considered as an OBC candidate, held that a re-adjustment is not practical as it would unsettle service allotment of several hundred candidates. Accordingly, the original application was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.D.Jayakrishnan would submit that though the petitioner had applied under the general category, the fact that he belongs to OBC cannot be OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:5:- disputed. Though he was entitled for a non-creamy layer certificate, he was misled by the revenue authorities at the time of submitting his application that he will not be entitled for non- creamy layer certificate. But subsequently, when he is issued with a non- creamy layer certificate, UPSC is bound to correct the error that had been committed and he ought to have been provided the reservation benefit of OBC. It is argued that in so far as reservation is a fundamental right, there cannot be any estoppel or waiver of such fundamental right. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others [(1985) 3 SCC 545]. Reference is made to paragraphs 28 and 29, which reads as under:- “28. It is not possible to accept the contention that the petitioners are estopped from setting up their fundamental rights as a defence to the demolition of the huts put up by them on pavements or parts of public roads. There can be no estoppel against the Constitution. The Constitution is not only the paramount law of the land but, it is the source and sustenance of all laws. Its provisions are conceived in public interest and are intended to serve a public purpose. The doctrine of estoppel is based on the principle that consistency in word and action imparts certainty and honesty to human affairs. If a person makes a representation to another, on the faith of which the OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:6:- latter acts to his prejudice, the former cannot resile from the representation made by him. He must make it good. This principle can have no application to representations made regarding the assertion or enforcement of fundamental rights. For example, the concession made by a person that he does not possess and would not exercise his right to free speech and expression or the right to move freely throughout the territory of India cannot deprive him of those constitutional rights, any more than a concession that a person has no right of personal liberty can justify his detention contrary to the terms of Article 22 of the Constitution. Fundamental rights are undoubtedly conferred by the Constitution upon individuals which have to be asserted and enforced by them, if those rights are violated. But, the high purpose which the Constitution seeks to achieve by conferment of fundamental rights is not only to benefit individuals but to secure the larger interests of the community. The Preamble of the Constitution says that India is a democratic Republic. It is in order to fulfil the promise of the Preamble that fundamental rights are conferred by the Constitution, some on citizens like those guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 21 and 29 and, some on citizens and non-citizens alike, like those guaranteed by Articles 14, 21, 22 and 25 of the Constitution. No individual can barter away the freedoms conferred upon him by the Constitution. A concession made by him in a proceeding, whether under a mistake of law or otherwise, that he does not possess or will not enforce any particular fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel against him in that or any subsequent proceeding. Such a concession, if enforced, would defeat the purpose of the Constitution. Were the argument of estoppel valid, an all-powerful State could easily tempt an individual to forego his precious personal freedoms on promise of transitory, immediate benefits. Therefore, notwithstanding OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:7:- the fact that the petitioners had conceded in the Bombay High Court that they have no fundamental right to construct hutments on pavements and that they will not object to their demolition after October 15, 1981, they are entitled to assert that any such action on the part of public authorities will be in violation of their fundamental rights. How far the argument regarding the existence and scope of the right claimed by the petitioners is well-founded is another matter. But, the argument has to be examined despite the concession. 29. The plea of estoppel is closely connected with the plea of waiver, the object of both being to ensure bona fides in day-to- day transactions. In Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, [AIR 1959 SC 149 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 528 ] a Constitution Bench of this Court considered the question whether the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution can be waived. Two members of the Bench (Das, C.J. and Kapoor, J.) held that there can be no waiver of the fundamental right founded on Article 14 of the Constitution. Two others (N.H. Bhagwati and Subba Rao, JJ.) held that not only could there be no waiver of the right conferred by Article 14, but there could be no waiver of any other fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Constitution makes no distinction, according to the learned Judges, between fundamental rights enacted for the benefit of an individual and those enacted in public interest or on grounds of public policy”. 5. Yet another judgment relied upon is Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another [(2016) 4 SCC 754]. By this judgment, the Apex Court had affirmed a Division Bench judgment of High Court of Delhi in OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:8:- Pushpa v. Government, NCT of Delhi and Others (2009 SCC Online Del 281) in which reference was made to Tej Pal Singh and Others v. Government of NCT of Delhi [ILR 2001 Delhi 298]. It was held that in order to be considered for the post reserved for SC category, the requirement is that a person should belong to SC category. If a person is SC by birth and not by acquisition of the said category because of any other event happening at a later stage, a certificate issued by competent authority to that effect would only amount to an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. That was a case in which the question considered was whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the application after the date mentioned in the notification is eligible for selection under the OBC category or not. The Apex Court after considering the respective contentions observed that the judgment in WP(C) No. 9112/2008 by the High Court of Delhi in Pushpa (supra) laid down the correct law. By the said judgment, direction was given to accept the OBC certificate submitted by the candidate after the cut off date. 6. Another judgment relied upon is that of the Division OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:9:- Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Abdul Rasheed [2016 (5) KHC 129]. By this judgment, after referring to Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 KHC 725), Pushpa (supra) and other judgments, Division Bench held that when a person belongs to OBC category and he was entitled for reservation, his application cannot be rejected merely for the reason that he did not produce the OBC non-creamy layer certificate in the prescribed format which was issued within 180 days of the date of closure of the application. That was a case in which the candidate applied for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces and also Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF . His application has been rejected on the ground that the OBC certificate produced by him was issued 180 days after the closing date of the application. This Court held that the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the caste certificate was issued after 180 days from the closing date of receipt of the application. 7. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the aforesaid proposition of law as held in the aforesaid judgments. But the question is whether the petitioner applied for being OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:10:- considered under the OBC category or under the general category. It is not disputed that the petitioner applied only under the general category and it is after completion of the selection process and after appointment that he staked a claim that he ought to have been given the benefit of OBC and he produced a non-creamy layer certificate. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that all persons coming under OBC will not be entitled for reservation. Reservation is available only if the candidate produces non-creamy layer certificate. Under what circumstances the petitioner was unable to produce the same at the time of application and under what circumstance he applied under the general category at the relevant time is not known. One of the main reasons for rejecting his request for change of category is that if reservation is granted to the petitioner at this point of time, it will unsettle all the appointments so far made. When these two factual aspects are clear, there is no reason for us to take a different view from what has already been decided by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for UPSC Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil having supported the view of the Tribunal OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:11:- also placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P [AIR 2017 Allahabad 116]. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 19 reads thus:- “14. This aspect assumes significance when viewed in conjunction with the recitals contained in the initial caste certificate submitted by the appellant and the writ petitioners, upon a careful scrutiny of which we find that the same only recognised the holder thereof as being a member of a backward class recognised as such under a Government of India notification. The subsequent certificates which were produced by the appellant and the petitioners clearly certified them as being members of the OBC and covered under Schedule-I to the 1994 Act. Allied to this issue is the requirement of an OBC candidate being able to establish that he does not fall in the creamy layer. An OBC candidate therefore has to establish not just that he is recognised as an OBC in the State concerned but also that he does not fall within the zone of exclusion, namely the creamy layer. Both these conditions have to be cumulatively satisfied. We have articulated these basic principles for they shall have some bearing on the questions formulated for our consideration. 15. The second aspect which must necessarily be noted is the significance of a last date prescribed in an advertisement and its impact. A last date comes to be prescribed in an advertisement or recruitment notice to seek certain well established objectives. It firstly puts all prospective candidates on notice with regard to the eligibility qualifications that the employer desires a particular candidate to hold. The prescription of the last date also acts as information to the prospective candidates to test and ascertain whether they are OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:12:- eligible to participate in the selection process. There are therefore, upon the prescription of such a last date in the advertisement no shifting timelines or uncertainty. The prescription of such a condition in the advertisement also eschews any arbitrary action and denudes the authority from wielding a discretion which may be abused xxxxxx”. “19. Having noticed the statutory position, we then proceed to consider whether such a concession or exemption can be said to flow from Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution as contended. Upon a thoughtful consideration, we find ourselves unable to accept the broad proposition as canvassed by the learned counsels. We are of the considered view that no such right of exemption can possibly be said to reside in or flow from Article 16 of the Constitution. Insofar as infraction of Article 14 is concerned, we presume that the same has been urged as a corollary to the contention that the prescription is superfluous. We are afraid that we find ourselves unable to sustain this submission either. As noted above the prescription of a cut off date in an advertisement serves more than one salutary purpose. By requiring all applicants to adhere to this date, the State is not practicing any discrimination nor can it be said to be acting unfairly. The absence of such a requirement would quagmire the entire selection process in a state of complete uncertainty. One of the primary purposes which such a stipulation serves is enabling the selecting body to identify the number of candidates constituting the field of eligibility. Judging whether a particular candidate is entitled to the benefits of reservation or has rightly claimed as falling in the said category is an essential exercise liable to be undertaken. For the purposes of undertaking this exercise the selecting body must be in a position to adjudge for itself whether a particular OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:13:- candidate is entitled to the benefits and exemptions as claimed. If this were not read as being an inherent power in the selecting body, the process of selection itself may be completely derailed. While it is a true that a caste certificate is only a recognition of an existing status, as noted above, an OBC candidate necessarily must establish the twin conditions of belonging to a OBC group recognised by the State and also that he does not fall within the creamy layer. This requirement is liable to be judged with reference to a date prescribed in an advertisement. The certificate of OBC (non creamy layer) is issued with reference to the financial condition of the holder or his parents assessed over a period of three years. The financial condition of a holder is liable to change or fluctuate over a period of time. Viewed in this light it cannot be said that the requirement of submission of such a certificate by a particular date is not attracted to the case of an OBC candidate”. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we do not think that any grounds are made out to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. OP(CAT) is dismissed. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/- GOPINATH P. Rp True copy P.S. To Judge JUDGE OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:14:- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA 252/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P1 (A12) TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO. CSM/R.NO. 0532304/2016-E.III DATED 20.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1 A 23 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 22202/68/2017 -ALS-I DATED 20.12.2017 EXHIBIT P1 A1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION WITH ROLL NO. 0532304. EXHIBIT P1 A2 TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST DATED 31.5.2017 EXHIBIT P1 A3 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION NO. 13015/9/2017-AIS-1 DATED 2.8.2017 EXHIBIT P1 A4 TRUE COPY OF OM NO 36033/5/2004-ESTT. (SCT) DATED 14.10.2004 EXHIBIT P1 A5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 27396/F3/07/SCSTDD DATED 14.6.2010 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 A6 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATED NO. E2/4913/2017 DGW DATED 3.8.2017 OF THE PETITIONER FATHER SHOWING HIS ENTRY POST. EXHIBIT P1 A6 A TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A6 EXHIBIT P1 A7 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO. 18215/SC2/2012/LEG-SEC DATED 7.8.2017 OF THE PETITIONERS MOTHER SHOWING HERE ENTRY POST. EXHIBIT P1 A7A TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A7 OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:15:- EXHIBIT P1 A8 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY OBC CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT OF POSTS UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO., A9/20618/17 K D DATED 6.6.2017 EXHIBIT P1 A9 TRUE COPY OF PERFORMA-III FORM OF DECLARATION. EXHIBIT P1 A10 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2017 BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P1 A11 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER NO. DO/ST/06/2017/914 DATED 12.6.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MP. EXHIBIT P1 A13 TRUE COPY OF DO LETTER NO. CAI/2012 DATED 16.3.2012 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. EXHIBIT P1 A13 A TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A 13 EXHIBIT P1 A14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. BCDD/A1/208/12 (2) DATED 11.6.2012 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A14A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A 14 EXHIBIT P1 A 15 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.8.2012 FILED BY MS. NAVYA.K.N. EXHIBIT P1 A15A TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A 15 EXHIBIT P1 A 16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. BCDD/881/2012 DATED 27.9.2012 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A16A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A16 EXHIBIT P1 (A17) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. A2/BCDD/881/12 DATED 11.12.2012 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:16:- EXHIBIT P1 (A17A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A17 EXHIBIT P1 (A18) TRUE COPY OF TGO (RT) NO. 17/2017/BCDD DATED 10.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A18A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A18 EXHIBIT P1 (A19) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. BCDD/B2/4646/2016 (1) DATED 3.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO ALL DISTRICT COLLECTORS. EXHIBIT P1 (A19A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE 19 EXHIBIT P1 (A20) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. BCDD- B2/4646/2016 DATED 3.4.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE SCHEDULE TERETO. EXHIBIT (A20A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURES A20 EXHIBIT P1 (A21) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. BCDD- A3-2083/17 DATED 5.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO ANTOEHR CANDIDATE MS. REHNA.R. EXHIBIT P1 (A22) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.9.2017 IN OA NO. 180/00772/2017 EXHIBIT P1 (A24) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE 124 OF CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION RULES, 2016 PUBLISHED VIDE F.NO. 13018/3/2016-AIS(1) EXHIBIT P1 (A25) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LATEST ALLOCATION LIST DATED 4.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNSEL STATEMENT DATED OCTOBER, 2019 (SIC0 FIELD ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED NOVEMBER, 2018 FIELD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. OP(CAT) No.175/2019 -:17:- EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED JUNE, 2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 23.4.2018 FIELD BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 19.11.2018 OF THE PETITIONER IN ANSWER TO EXHIBIT P2 COUNSEL STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 5.1.2019 OF THE PETITIONER IN ANSWER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P3 REPLY STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 1.10.2018 OF THE PETITIONER IN ANSWER TO THE EXHIBIT P4 AND P5 REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO 6 RESPECTIVELY. EXHIBIT P9 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.3.2019 IN OA 252/2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RULES OF CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION RULES 2016 EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.08/2016-CSP DATED 27/4/2016 EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KR/KC/4641A/ENF- 11(2)/2011/17389 DATED 22/2/2012 "