Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Imran Khan vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 September, 2016
Bench: Navin Sinha, Pankaj Bhandari
1
0IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13916/2013
Imran Khan S/o Sh. Niyaz Mohammed, aged about 21
years, R/o 10, Gogiyo Ki Gali, Near ten taps, Bamba
Mohalla, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.Union of India through General Manager, Railway
Headquarters, North Western Railway, Jaipur.
2.The Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment &
Training), Railway Recruitment Cell, North Western
Railway, Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur.
RESPONDENTS
Date of order : 16.09.2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NAVIN SINHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Mr. K.K. Shah, for the appellant.
Mr. Kamal Dave, for the respondents.
ORDER
The present writ petition assails the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Central Administrative 2 Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in OA No. 494/2012. Dismissing the application, the Tribunal held that the petitioner having failed to apply in the OBC category enclosing the necessary OBC Certificate, was not entitled to be considered for appointment on Group-D post in that category.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had applied in the OBC Category and submitted the necessary caste certificate in support of the same. When the respondents in their counter affidavit denied the fact of his having submitted the necessary certificate, only then it became necessary for the petitioner to deny this fact. The admit card issued to him for the examination to be held on 10.6.2012 for that reason had mentioned him as an OBC candidate. In the OMR answer sheet he had highlighted the circle against that category. The petitioner was in possession of an OBC certificate dated 16.10.2006 and there is no discernible reason why he would have been so negligent as not to submit the same detrimental to his own interest. If his caste certificate has been misplaced by the respondents he cannot be visited with the consequences. The last submission was that in his original application form produced by the respondents Enclosure page 2 is missing.
3
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner against column meant for `caste' entered the words "minority community". With his application, he had only enclosed the necessary certificate that he belonged to the minority community. Neither did the petitioner mention in his form that he belonged to the OBC category nor did he enclose his caste certificate. The entry OBC in his admit card was an inadvertant error. The order of the Tribunal therefore calls for no interference.
We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The respondents have produced the original application of the petitioner for our perusal also.
The respondents published an advertisement on 16.10.2010 for filling up Group-D post. It contained a separate column 7 with regard to religion. The petitioner mentioned "muslim" against the same. Column 11 related to caste. He mentioned "minority community" and enclosed certificate of belonging to the same. Neither did he mention that he was applying in the OBC category nor did he enclose his caste certificate. Column 7 of the instructions in the advertisement regarding payment of `examination fee' mentioned that the examination fee for unreserved and 4 OBC category was Rs. 40/- while for SC,ST, Physically handicapped women, minorities and economically poor candidates whose family income was less then Rs. 50,000/- they were totally exempted from examination fee. There are no allegations of any malafides. If the petitioner was in possession of an OBC caste certificate dated 16.10.2016 it does not lead to any automatic presumption that he had annexed the same. The original application placed before us does not contain his caste certificate or mention that fact even. In his OA application he had merely stated in paragraph 2 that being eligible he had applied in the OBC category. There is no pleading that he had enclosed his caste certificate. There will be a presumption with regard to correctness of the contents of the original application as produced by the respondents under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. The onus is on the petitioner to rebutt the same which he has not been able to discharge. In any event it therefore becomes a disputed fact which cannot be examined in the writ jurisdiction. The case has to be decided on basis of pleadings contained in the original petition and not what may be stated in the reply. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that petitioner did not submit his caste certificate. That he may have denied it 5 in his rejoinder is therefore irrelevant.
The submission that the original application produced before us is incomplete as Enclosure 2 was missing is also considered irrelevant because it was a part of the form and had nothing to do with the caste certificate or entry in respect of the same which had to be enclosed and mentioned separately. The enclosure may not have been relevant to the present advertisement as the paging is continuous and does not show any missing pages. It is not difficult to understand the reason why the petitioner mentioned "
minority community'' in the column meant for caste. In his effort to achieve short term gain to avoid payment of Rs. 40/- as examination fee he has ended up causing irreparable harm to himself and has only himself to blame.
Not much will turn on the admit card issued to the petitioner for the examination as column 5 did not contain any separate entries for different categories or caste but simply mentioned `leqnk;/Community'. Article 16 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of religion and therefore the entry OBC may have been a data entry error only as there was no provision of mentioning "muslim" or 6 "minority community" against the same. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the same merely because he may have been permitted to appear in the exam due to mistake. The respondents will be justified in rejecting the candidature at any stage of the selection process if a mistake made by them is discovered subsequently or even after appointment.
The conclusions of the Tribunal therefore call for no interference. We are informed that the present advertisement of 2010 has been followed by two further advertisement bearing number 2/2013 and 3/2013.
In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
The petition is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J. (NAVIN SINHA), CJ. nd.