The petitioner enrolled in the MBBS program at Respondent No.4-College in the 2012-13 academic year under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, relying on the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate obtained by her father. However, following a writ petition by another student questioning the validity of such certificates, an inquiry was launched into the admissions of students claiming OBC status.

The inquiry revealed inconsistencies in the father's statements regarding his marital status and family income, which led the Enquiry Committee to conclude that he had misrepresented facts to secure the certificate. As a result, both the Collector and the College moved to cancel the petitioner’s admission.

The petitioner swiftly filed a writ petition to contest these cancellations. Initially, the court granted her interim relief, allowing her to continue her studies while the case was under review. Over the years, she completed her MBBS course, served as a Medical Officer, and even pursued a diploma in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

However, the ruling took a turn as the court examined the Enquiry Committee's findings. It established that the father had falsely claimed his wife had no income, neglecting to disclose her employment status. This discrepancy was deemed a significant violation, as it directly impacted the family's eligibility for the Non-Creamy Layer status.

Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the father’s application was riddled with inaccuracies. His claim of separation from his wife contradicted his later assertions about their cohabitation for the sake of their children. This contradiction, alongside the undisclosed income of the mother, led the court to affirm the legitimacy of the Enquiry Committee’s report that the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate had been obtained through deceit.

In a balanced decision, the court upheld the cancellation of the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate but acknowledged the petitioner’s completed medical education under the interim order. The ruling highlighted the necessity of maintaining integrity in educational admissions, particularly in competitive fields like medicine. While the petitioner’s degree would not be revoked, she was ordered to pay the difference in fees between the Open Category and OBC admissions, along with a penalty to the college.

This case underscores the critical importance of transparency and honesty in the admissions process, particularly regarding caste-based reservations. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal and ethical responsibilities that accompany such claims, emphasizing that the integrity of the medical profession hinges on accurate representations and fairness in access to education. The decision ultimately balances justice for the individual while reinforcing the need for a fair admissions system that does not compromise on standards.