Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 8 May, 2015
Equivalent citations: 2015 (4) AJR 457
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1548 of 2015
RAKESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAJ KUMAR PRASAD (FATHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF SHAURYA KUMAR), RESIDENT OF
QUARTER NO.171, SECTOR IC, NEAR RAM MANDIR, BOKARO
STEEL CITY, P.O. & P.S SECTORI, DISTRICT BOKARO
... ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
2. THE CHAIRMAN JHARKHAND ACADEMIC COUNCIL,
GYANDEEP CAMPUS, BARGAWA, NAMKOM, P.O. & P.S. NAMKOM,
DISTRICT RANCHI
3. THE SECRETARY, JHARKHAND ACADEMIC COUNCIL,
GYANDEEP CAMPUS, BARGAWA, NAMKOM, P.O. & P.S. NAMKOM,
DISTRICT RANCHI
4. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING (NCERT) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICIATING AT
SRI AURBINDO MARG, NEW DELHI P.O. & P.S. NEW DELHI,
DISTRICT NEW DELHI
... ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. ANANDA SEN, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENTS : MR. M.S. ANWAR, SR. ADVOCATE
MR. AFAQUE AHMAD, ADVOCATE
05/ 08.05.2015Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the respondent no.4 is not a necessary party in the present proceeding and therefore, the respondent no.4 may be deleted from the array of the parties in the present proceeding. Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 raises no objection. Accordingly, respondent no.4 is deleted from the array of parties in the writ petition, at the risk of the petitioner.
2. Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that though, the son of the petitioner correctly filled Column6, which gives description of category of candidate and the Headmaster of the school also gave his certification, the candidature of the son of the petitioner has been treated in 'General' category. It is stated that the son of the petitioner in support of his claim as a 'Scheduled Caste' candidate submitted his Caste Certificate however, on the ground that the son of the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence, that is, the Caste Certificate, his candidature was considered in 'General' category. It is further submitted that the original record, which has been produced in the Court, would corroborate the plea taken by the petitioner inasmuch as, the top corner of the original application form is torn. It is the specific case of the son of the petitioner that he had stapled his Caste Certificate alongwith the original form.
3. As against the above, Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondentJharkhand Academic Council submits that the advertisement as well as the application form made it abundantly clear to the candidates that in support of the claim seeking reservation, a candidate is required to submit Caste Certificate alongwith the application. As many as five candidates did not submit Caste Certificate alongwith their applications and all of them were treated as 'General' category candidate. It is further submitted that the stand taken by the son of the petitioner that he has submitted the Caste Certificate, which appears from the 3 condition of the application form itself, is frivolous. The top lefthand corner of the application form is torn because several applications are bunched together and in handling some of them might have been torn. There is no specific allegation of malafide alleged against one or the other officers of the respondentJharkhand Academic Council and therefore, there is no reason why, if at all the petitioner had submitted Caste Certificate alongwith the application, it would not be found in the record of the respondentJharkhand Academic Council. The original application of the petitioner has been produced in the Court.
4. When the matter was listed on 30.04.2015, the counsel for the Jharkhand Academic Council sought time for filing a reply to the writ petition. On the next date of hearing, original record was produced in the Court and the learned counsel for the respondentJharkhand Academic Council stated that a copy of Caste Certificate of the son of the petitioner was not found alongwith the application submitted by him. The matter was adjourned for 08.05.2015 directing the respondentJharkhand Academic Council to disclose the procedure adopted by it while preparing the list of successful candidates.
5. A supplementary counteraffidavit has been filed in which, it has been admitted by the respondentJharkhand Academic Council that after the evaluation of OMR sheets, a list of candidates was prepared. In the provisional list thus prepared, name of the 4 son of the petitioner appeared however, the result was published only after verification of the certificates. When it was found that the son of the petitioner and other four candidates have failed to submit Caste Certificate, they were treated as 'General' category candidates.
6. From the original application submitted by the son of the petitioner, I find that the Column3 at the bottom of the application form relates to certification of the Headmaster of the school as to caste of the candidate. In the application form of the petitioner's son, there is no certification of his caste by the Headmaster of the school. The note below Column6 specifically states that a candidate is required to submit relevant certificate in support of the information given in Column6. Though, the son of the petitioner has taken a plea that he has submitted Caste Certificate alongwith his application, the respondentJharkhand Academic Council has taken a stand that no such certificate was found in its record alongwith the application of the son of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that the physical state of the application form would corroborate the plea that his son had in fact, submitted Caste Certificate, cannot be believed in view of the supplementary counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondentJharkhand Academic Council. Insofar as, the plea of the son of the petitioner that in the OMR sheet also, he has correctly darken the bubble relating to the Caste is concerned, I find 5 that the respondentJharkhand Academic Council has come up with a stand that in the initial list prepared by it, the name of the son of the petitioner finds place however, on physical verification when it was found that the son of the petitioner and other four candidates have failed to submit Caste Certificate, all those candidates were treated as 'General' category candidates.
7. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K./N.A.F.R.