Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Jitendra Kumar Yadav vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 19 March, 2024
1 OA No.203/78/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING : BILASPUR
Original Application No.203/78/2018
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 19th day of March, 2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Jitendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Baleshwar, aged about 34 years,
Unemployed, R/o : Qr. No.6A, Street-14, Sector -2, Bhilai - 490001 Dist.
Durg -Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Vikas Bajpai)
Versus
1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences through the Director, Tatibandh,
G.E. Road, Raipur, District : Raipur (CG) 492001.
2. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, Tatibandh, G.E. Road, Raipur, District : Raipur (CG) 492001.
3. The Scrutiny Committee, All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Tatibandh, G.E. Road, Raipur, District : Raipur (CG) 492001.
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri B.P. Rao)
(Date of reserving order : 08.01.2024)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
The applicant is aggrieved by rejection of his candidature for the post of LDC.
Page 1 of 7 2 OA No.203/78/2018
2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.03.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates against 30 vacant posts of LDC, the applicant, being an OBC candidate has applied against the aforesaid post. At the time of submitting the application, the applicant was within the prescribed age limit of 33 years for an OBC candidate, as he was 32 years, 6 months old at that relevant point of time.
2.1 The applicant, thereafter, participated in the written test and typing test held on 24.12.2017 in which he was declared successful. However, on document verification, it was informed to the applicant that his candidature for the post has been rejected as he was overage as he was considered as an unreserved candidate because of not submitting OBC certificate in prescribed format within the time period.
2.2 The applicant submits that he was issued with the relevant OBC certificate by the competent authority on 04.04.2013 (Annexure A-4) and it was nowhere mentioned in the certificate that the same is valid for a particular time period only and, therefore, the respondents should have Page 2 of 7 3 OA No.203/78/2018 allowed reasonable time to the applicant to produce a fresh Caste Certificate.
3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the employment notification dated 10.03.2016 clearly stipulated that OBC certificate must be issued not earlier than 9.4.2015, i.e., one year prior to the date of submission of application under the employment notification dated 10.03.2016. The applicant was allowed to participate in the written test, which was held on 24.12.2017, i.e. after one and half year of date of employment notification and the applicant had sufficient time to obtain his latest OBC certificate from the prescribed competent authority. But, he failed to obtain the same and participated in the document verification process on 24.12.2017.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents should have allowed reasonable time to the applicant to submit the OBC certificate, as per the prescribed format. But, no opportunity was given to the applicant. He relied upon the order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Page 3 of 7 4 OA No.203/78/2018 O.A. No.2679 of 2016 decided on 30.10.2017 (Annexure A-5), wherein it has been held that late submission of Caste Certificate would not be sufficient ground for rejection of the candidature of the applicant under 'reserved' category. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others, (2016) 4 SCC 754, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remvoe inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society." Finally, learned counsel for the applicant added that the applicant was under the impression that the OBC certificate is valid for three years and, as such, he has submitted the certificate issued on 04.04.2013 during the document verification. He also highlighted that treating the applicant as unreserved Page 4 of 7 5 OA No.203/78/2018 candidate and declaring the applicant overage is also unjustified as the applicant is an OBC candidate.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Para 11 of the employment notification clearly states that "candidates applying under the reserved category viz. OBC, SC, ST will be considered subject to submission of Caste Certificate on a prescribed format issued by the Central Government of India which mentions that the Candidate does not belong to Creamy Layer/Non Creamy Layer. Date of issue of Certificate should not be earlier than 1 year from the last date of submission of Application Form, which is 09.04.2016 (AN) i.e. should not be issued before 09.04.2015, failing which their candidature will not be considered under any of the applied reserved category and will be treated as UR."
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter.
8. The General Conditions annexed with the employment notification dated 10.03.2016 (Annexure A-1) are the guidelines for the candidates and the candidates, before submitting their application form, are expected to go through these instructions. Para 11 of the said General Conditions, quoted above, clearly mentions that the reserved candidates are required to submit Page 5 of 7 6 OA No.203/78/2018 the Caste Certificate in a prescribed format issued by the Central Government clearly mentioning that they do not belong to Creamy Layer/Non Creamy Layer and such certificate should not be earlier than one year from the last date of submission of application form, i.e. 09.04.2016. Thus, it cannot be denied that the applicant was not aware of the condition stipulated in Para 11 of the employment notification.
9. It is also noted that the applicant had the sufficient time to obtain the OBC certificate in the prescribed format as there was a gap of almost one and half year between the date of notification and the date of document verification process. Even during the process of document verification, he has never asked for the authorities to allow him further time by which time he can produce the OBC certificate. Hence, there is no question to voluntarily allow the applicant any further time in getting such certificate.
10. The order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.3257 of 2014, relied upon by the applicant, is also distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, condition No.11 of the employment notification specifically stipulates that the Case Certificate of reserved category must contain the fact that they do not belong to Creamy Layer/Non Page 6 of 7 7 OA No.203/78/2018 Creamy Layer and the Caste Certificate (Annexure A-4) submitted by the applicant admittedly does not mention this fact, whereas this was not the case before the Principal Bench rather the genuineness of the Caste Certificate though submitted belatedly was the sole issue before the Principal Bench. Similar was the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). Thus, in the absence of non production of the Caste Certificate, as provided in Para 11 of the employment notification, the respondents have rightly treated the applicant as General candidate and rejected his candidature being overage.
11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this Original Application. The Original Application is accordingly dismissed, without there being any order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 7 of 7