Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Singh And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 February, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.3756/2011 Mahendra Singh & ors versus Union of India & ors 28.2.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ankit Sethi for petitioners Mr SS Hasan for respondents BY THE COURT:
It is a case where petitioners applied for selection to the post of Sub Inspector, Central Police Organisations pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-1. Petitioners were called for tire I examination followed by interview. The grievance of the petitioners is for consideration of their candidature against general category instead of OBC, to which they belong.
It is urged by learned counsel that petitioners submitted required caste certificate before appearance in the interview. Respondents failed to consider those certificates on the ground that it was not submitted prior to 2.3.2010 whereas, as per clause 5(C) of the advertisement, such certificate could have been submitted after declaration of result of tire-I examination. Accordingly, respondents may be directed to consider case of the petitioners in OBC category as petitioners find place in the merit and they may be given appointment.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that OBC certificate was required to be furnished on or before 2.3.2010. Petitioners failed to do so, accordingly, they were considered in general category. He has also given reference of clause 5(c) of the advertisement, more specifically note appended thereto. A further reference of Annexure-6 has been given whereby petitioners were given call letter. Therein, referring to clause (iv), it is stated that OBC certificate was required to be possessed on or before 2.3.2010 whereas petitioners obtained aforesaid certificates in the prescribed format after the aforesaid date. This is more so when it was required to be obtained with creamy layer status within three years with reference to closing date i.e. 2.3.2010. The certificates obtained by the petitioners at Annexure-7 are having dates of 14.5.2010, 22.7.2010 and 10.8.2010 respectively i.e. much subsequent to the crucial date and in the aforesaid certificates. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents.
I have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case.
The only controversy involved is as to whether petitioners submitted required caste certificates in the prescribed format within time and as per the requirement. For the aforesaid purpose, clause 5(C) of the advertisement is relevant thus quoted hereunder -
5(C): PROCESS OF CERTICATION AND FORMAT OF CERTIFICATES:
Candidates who wish to be considered against vacancies reserved/ or seek age relaxation must submit requisite certificate from the competent authority, in the prescribed format when such certificates are sought by concerned Regional/ Sub Regional Offices after declaration of result of Tier-I examination otherwise, their claim for SC/ST OBC/ PH/ ExS status will not be entertained and their candidature/ applications will be considered under General (UR) category. The formats of the certificates are annexed. Candidates claiming OBC status may note that certificate on creamy layer status should have been obtained within three years before the closing date i.e. 02.03.2010.
NOTE I: The closing date i.e. 02.03.2010 for receipt of application will be treated as the date of reckoning for OBC status of the candidate.
NOTE II : Candidates are warned that they may be permanently debarred from the examination conducted by the Commission in case they fraudulently claim SC/ ST/ OBC/ ExS/ PH status.
Perusal of the quoted portion reveals that requisite certificate may be submitted after declaration of result of Tier I examination, however, there is a condition that those who are claiming OBC status must submit the certificate of creamy layer status obtained within three years before closing date i.e. 2.3.2010. Note appended to the clause reinforce the aforesaid condition wherein closing date i.e. 2.3.2012 has been mentioned for reckoning OBC status of a candidate. As per the aforesaid condition, a candidate claiming OBC status was required to obtain certificate for reckoning his OBC status as on 2.3.2012 or within three years before the aforesaid date. The above condition has been narrated again in the call letter at Annexure-6. Clause (iv) of the call letter thus quoted hereunder -
(iv) You should possess the OBC certificate in the format prescribed for Government of India post as per the notice, issued on or before 02.03.2010 by Competent Authority, in case you belong to OBC category and produce the original at the time of interview, otherwise, you will be treated as UR category. Candidates claiming OBC status may note that certificate on creamy layer status should have been obtained within three years before closing dated i.e. 02.03.2010, which is the date of reckoning for OBC status of the candidate.
Perusal of the quoted clause further shows that the OBC certificate in prescribed format issued on or before 2.3.2010 by the competent authority should be possessed by the candidate. The only liberty given to the candidate to produce original certificate at the time of interview. Accordingly, a candidate was having facility to produce original certificate at the time of interview but such certificate should have been issued on or before 2.3.2010 by the competent authority. Last two lines of the aforesaid clause further reinforce that certificate of creamy layer status should be of three years before the closing date i.e. 2.3.2010, whereas, in the instant case, petitioners obtained aforesaid certificates after the closing date i.e. 2.3.2010. In the aforesaid background, if petitioners have been treated in general/unreserved category, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents.
In fact, petitioners could have been submitted original certificate at the time of interview or even after declaration of result of tier-I examination but such certificate should have been obtained on or before the crucial date i.e. 2.3.2010 to show status of creamy layer on the aforesaid date. The certificates at Annexure-7 do not certify petitioners' status as on 2.3.2010 and it is not otherwise issued within three years before the closing date i.e. 2.3.2010.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents. Hence, writ petition so as the stay application found to be devoid of merit, are dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW