Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ruksana Bano vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 March, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11103/2020 Ruksana Bano D/o Shri Sadik Khan, Aged About 29 Years, (Divorcee), R/o Village Bhalro Ka Bada, Samdari, Tehsil Samdari, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Director (Admn)., Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Siwana, District Barmer(Raj.).
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora for Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 04/03/2021
1. The petitioner applied for the post of Health Worker (Female), pursuant to advertisement dated 18.06.2018, as an OBC Divorcee Candidate.
2. Petitioner's name was shown in the merit list, however, when she appeared for document verification, the respondents rejected her candidature under the OBC Category, as her certificate dated 19.07.2017 shown her to be OBC Creamy Layer.
3. Petitioner has approached this Court with a specific case that she belongs to OBC Non-Creamy Layer and had applied for (Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:46:00 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-11103/2020] issuance of a certificate of OBC Non-Creamy Layer, however, the issuing authority wrongly issued certificate of OBC Creamy Layer.
4. According to petitioner, the fact that her certificate has been issued for OBC Creamy Layer, could not come to her notice at the time of submitting application form and appearing for document verification.
5. On 17.02.2021, this Court passed the following order:-
"1. Apart from the grievance that petitioner's candidature has not been considered under the category of OBC-Non Creamy Layer, the root cause of the dispute, which remains to be addressed/redressed is, that even though the petitioner had applied for issuance of certificate of OBC-Non Creamy Layer, the concerned SDO had issued the certificate of OBC- Creamy Layer.
2. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioner invites Court's attention towards the certificates dated 01.02.2010; 04.09.2015; 12.07.2019 and 14.02.2020 and points out that all the certificates issued to the petitioner shows that the petitioner belongs to OBC- Non Creamy Layer category.
3. Vide order dated 09.02.2021, concerned SDO, Siwana, District Barmer was directed to remain personally present alongwith the relevant record, including application and documents filed by the petitioner, in relation to OBC certificate dated 19.07.2017.
4. Ms. Kusumlata Chouhan, the concerned SDO present in the Court, has produced only a print out of the application form submitted by the E-Mitra. She submits that the documents submitted alongwith application could not be downloaded/opened and thus, she has not been in a position to produce other relevant record.
5. Learned SDO, nevertheless, admits the fact that petitioner has been issued the above referred certificates categorising her to be "OBC-Non Creamy Layer" and the contentious certificate dated 19.07.2017 is the solitary certificate, which shows her to be OBC-Creamy Layer. Explaining the reason for such discrepancy, she points out that as per the information uploaded by the E-Mitra, the petitioner has been shown to be "Creamy Layer" inasmuch as in the concerned column meant for Creamy Layer, the option "gkWa" was opted.
5. She further admits that the report of the Patwari dated 19.06.2017 was available on record, but the (Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:46:00 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-11103/2020] certificate under consideration has been issued as per the request made by the petitioner herself, of course as submitted by E-Mitra.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, may be the concerned E-Mitra has committed inadvertent error, while submitting online request for issuance of OBC certificate, but the fact and substance of the matter is, that the petitioner is an "OBC-Non Ceamy Layer" candidate and she has been issued at least five certificates by the competent authority certifying her as such.
7. This being the position, the SDO, Siwana District Barmer is hereby directed to correct/amend certificate dated 19.07.2017, which has been issued to the petitioner, of course after examining the petitioner's documents.
8. For the purpose aforesaid, she may call for fresh report from the Patwari or other documentary evidence and for this purpose, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SDO on 19.02.2021 alongwith original certificate dated 19.07.2017. The concerned SDO shall issue amended certificate or make an endorsement to this effect preferably before 02.03.2021, obviously, after ascertaining the requisite facts.
9. List this case on 04.03.2021.
10. Interim order shall continue till then."
6. In furtherance of the order dated 17.02.2021, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Siwana has issued an order dated 02.03.2021, inter alia, certifying that petitioner belongs to OBC Non-Creamy Layer and her certificate ought to have been issued as such. The relevant part of the order dated 02.03.2021, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siwana, reads thus:-
"mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd bl dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh vU; fiNMk oxZ dk izek.k i= ukWu dzhehys;j ds LFkku ij dzhehys;j tkjh gksus ls mDr izek.k i= ds fo:) esa vki }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa fjV la[;k 11103@2020 :dlkuk ckuks cuke ljdkj yxk;h x;h gSA fnukad 17-02-2021 dks v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ dks mDr fjV da laca/k esa rF;kRed fjiksVZ is"k djus gsrq vknsf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA mDr rF;kRed fjiksVZ ckcr rglhynkj lenMh dks bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad fjV@2021@5184 fnukad 19-02-2021 }kjk funsZf"kr fd;k x;k ftldh ikyuk esa rglhynkj lenMh ds i=kad }kjk voxr djok;k fd& 1- 19-07-2017 dks vki ukWu dzhehys;j Js.kh ls laca/k j[krh FkhA ftl ckcr gYdk iVokjh }kjk tkap fjiksVZ esa voxr (Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:46:00 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-11103/2020] djok;k x;k gS ijUrq Jh txnEck bZ&fe= ,.M QksVks dkWih rglhy ds ikl] lenMh ckMesj }kjk vkWuykbZu djrs le; vki }kjk lgou ls ukWu dzhehys;j ds LFkku ij dzhehys;j ntZ dj fn;k gS ftl vk/kkj ij bl dk;kZy; ls vU; fiNMk oxZ dzhehys;j dk izek.k i= tkjh gqvkA 2- vkids firk ds foxr o'kZ ds th,&55 ds voyksdju ls Hkh ;g rF; ik;k x;k fd vki 19-07-2017 ls vkt fnukad rd ukWu dzhehys;j Js.kh ls laca/k j[krh gSA 3- vr% vU; fiNMk oxZ izek.k i= la[;k 170050747481 fnukad 19-07-2017 dks vU; fiNMk oxZ ukWu dzhehys;j ekuk o le>k tkosxkA" (emphasis supplied)
7. In view of the aforesaid, there remains no doubt that the petitioner is an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate and the certificate dated 19.07.2017, which suffered from an inadvertent error, has been duly amended by the competent authority.
8. In considered opinion of this Court, petitioner's candidature as OBC Non-Creamy Layer is not in doubt, so is her status of a divorcee'.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 18.01.2020, to the extent of cancelling petitioner's candidature as OBC-NCL Divorcee' Category Candidate is hereby set aside.
10. Petitioner has secured 39.489 marks, which is more than the cut-off marks of her category - OBC NCL Divorcee (34.662).
11. One seat has already been ordered to be kept reserved for her vide order dated 17.12.2020. The respondents are, therefore, directed to offer appointment to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, if she is otherwise eligible.
12. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 75-skm/-(Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:46:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)