Allahabad High Court
Reeta Chaudhary And 2 Others vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 7 January, 2020
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4904 of 2019 Petitioner :- Reeta Chaudhary And 2 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir,Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal,Vikas Budhwar Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by D.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14th January, 2019 terminating the license of the distributorship of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) on the ground that petitioners submitted a caste certificate for availing the benefit of reservation in the matter of grant of license of distributorship, of backward caste being Jaat, which at that point of time was not recognized as backward caste by the Central Government and thus it is held that he has availed the benefit of reservation in the category of other backward caste by submitting wrong certificate.
3. Assailing the order impugned it has been vehemently urged by the learned Senior Advocate that in the application he had filled in all the correct details and so also had annexed, the caste certificate issued in that regard by the competent State authority. He submits that petitioner never misled the authority by submitting any forged document. The applicant was recognized as of backward caste as per certificate issued by the State authority and so the petitioner cannot be held to have deliberately misled the authority by committing fraud or forgery. He has drawn attention of this Court towards caste certificate bearing no. 12509303477 dated 21st August, 2009 issued under the seal and signature of then Tehsildar, Tehsil Iglas, District Aligarh in which petitioner has been shown as of Jaat caste belonging to other backward caste of the State of U.P.
4. Per Contra the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is that as per advertisement petitioner was required to submit caste certificate of the OBC category notified by the Central Government and in the year 2013 the Jaat caste was not recognized and notified by Central Government as a backward caste. He submits that Jaat came to be recognized as other backward caste by the Central Government in the year 2014 and said notification dated 4th March, 2014 included Jaat in the Central list of the other backward caste for the State of Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, City of Delhi, Bharatpur Dhavalpur and district of Rajasthan, U.P. And Uttarakhand. However, he argues that said notification has been set aside in the case of Ram Singh v. Union of India, 2015 (4) SCC 697.
5. He has drawn attention of the Court towards consideration of the Jaat caste in State of U.P. Vide paragraph 26.8 of the judgment (supra) and has argued that law declared under judicial pronouncement unless made prospective shall always be deemed to be law of land and in such circumstances, therefore, the Jaat cannot be held to be of backward caste and hence petitioner could not have availed benefit of reservation under the OBC category.
6. Learned counsel for the Corporation has further contended that even as per guidelines that provided for reservation in the OBC category, it is clearly provided that the applicants belonging to other backward classes should be recognized as OBC by Government of India and then certificate was required to be of the competent authority on behalf of Government of India. Paragraph 4 of the guidelines relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is reproduced hereunder:
Applicants belonging to 'Other Backward Classes' recognized as OBC by Government of India (Central Government) under the Constitution of India will be eligible to apply under this category.
Such applicants will be required to submit along with application a certificate issued by the competent authority notified by the Government of India (GO) certifying that the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes recognized as OBC by a Resolution/Gazette Notification issued by GOI (Central Government) Along with the OBC certificate, the candidate also has to submit self attested copy of the undertaking that he/she belongs to the OBC category and fulfils the non-creamy layer status. The last date for submission of application mentioned in the notice of advertisement or corrigendum (if any) will be treated as the date of reckoning for OBC status of the candidate and also for determining that the candidate does not fall in the creamy layer.
7. In view of above, it is submitted on behalf of the Corporation that there is manifest error in the order passed by the authority and the petitioner having wrongly been given benefit of the reservation, the petitioner's license was liable to be cancelled. Attention of the court has also drawn to the condition no. 11 g of the license which clearly stipulates that in case if anything is found to have been concealed in the application or wrongly presented or found to be false which may have adverse effect on the eligibility of the candidate, then without even assigning any reason distributorship would liable to be cancelled and it is thus contended that distributorships license was accorded subject to this condition vide advertisement pursuant to which present petitioner has been benefited.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments across the bar and having perused the record, the sole consideration for our determination is as to whether petitioner really belongs to the backward caste to be given benefit of the reservation in the said category while considering his application for award of distributorship license.
9. Defending the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not mislead authorities while submitting the application, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the consideration of his application, it has been vehemently urged by learned Senior Advocate, that the petitioner had submitted certificate of the State authority in the column where it was mentioned to be of Central Government and so it was clearly stated to be of the State and therefore, if authorities had the opportunity to examine and verify the records qua OBC certificate, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed fraud.
10. It has been further argued that petitioner has made huge investment to run distributorship and on simple complaint of third party his distributorship has now come to be terminated. In other words learned Senior Advocate virtually seeks enforcement of principle of estoppel in the present case.
11. The legal position is very clear that there is no estoppel against law. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Singh's case (supra) in which vide 26.8 and ultimately in its concluding paragraph 56 it has been held thus:
"26.8 UTTAR PRADESH AND UTTARAKHAND "The Jat population is primarily concentrated in western Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Jat community got included in the State OBC list in 2000. Our observations are based on the Social Justice Committee Report (SJCR) 2001, which has been prepared after the Jat community was already included in the state OBC list by the Uttar Pradesh Government in 2000, The SJCR population estimates are based on the Village Panchayat Family Register, Accordingly the highest population at 19.6% is that of Ahir followed by 7.5 % Kurmi (different variants) and 3.6% Jats. The comparable socioeconomic indicators are available in Singh (2003) that we use in this report. Singh (2003) shows that about 92% Jat households own land. The figures for Ahir and Kurmi are 95% and 100%, respectively. Singh (2003) also reports that 89% of the workers among the Jats in rural areas are engaged in primary sector activities, which is similar to that of Ahir/Yadava but lower than the Gujar community. The proportion of those completed graduation and above in the Jat community is 1.7% compared to 3% for Yadava. Similarly, the proportion of post-graduate is 0.2% for Jat and 0,7% for Yadava. The data compiled by SCJR in 2001 from higher educational institutions on 207,000 students indicate that the share of Jats is much less than their share in the population while that of Ahir and Kurmi was much higher than their population share. The information compiled by SJCR suggests that share of Ahir/Yadava is 3: 4% whereas Kurmis have 11.2% in professional education. Share of Jats is only.0.3% that is way below the share of Ahir and Kurmi shares. In the Group A & B Government Employment, the share of Jat is 5.5% and 4.3%, respectively, which is slightly higher than their share in OBC population. Corresponding figures for Yadava and their variant for Group A & B services is 46% and 42% Of the OBC which is much higher than their share in the population of OBC which is 19.4%. Similar differences are observed in case of Kurmi and their variants. As far as Uttarakhand is concerned, no separate report is available. Apparently, Uttarakhand has accepted the list of OBC as that of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, Jats are at par compared to OBCs such as Ahir/Yadav as far as ownership of the land is concerned. However, in case of enrolment in higher and technical education they lag behind Ahir/Yaday. In case of representation in the government service, the share is proportionate to their population but relatively lower than the Ahir/Yadava and Kurmi.
56. For the various reasons indicated above, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned. The view taken by the NCBC to the contrary is adequately supported by good and acceptable reasons which furnished a sound and reasonable basis for further consequential action on the part of the Union Government. In the above situation we cannot hold the notification dated 4.3.2014 to be justified. Accordingly the aforesaid notification bearing No. 63 dated 4.3.2014 including the Jats in the Central List of Other Backward Classes for the States of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Bharatpur and Dholpur Districts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is set aside and quashed."
12. From bare reading of the above paragraphs and observations made in the aforesaid judgment and ultimate conclusion drawn by the Apex Court, it is clearly borne out that even in respect of State of U.P. Notification has been found to be faulted with and accordingly entire notification even in respect of U.P. declaring Jaat as of OBC category dated 4th March, 2014 has been quashed.
12. The undisputed position that emerges out of the said judgment is two fold:- (a). Jaats have been held not to be of OBC category and judgment being not prospective, it will be always be taken to law that Jaats are not of the OBC category even in State of U.P. as far as Central notification is concerned; and (b). prior to 4th March, 2014, Jaats were never notified to be as of OBC category by Central Government.
13. Respondents are Central Government owned Corporation and therefore any advertisement for their license of dealership or distributorship, while applying the rule of reservation they will abide by the Central Government notification and rules framed and issued in that regard. So if Corporation had directed the petitioner to furnish caste certificate as per Union of India notification/Government of India, if petitioner has submitted caste certificate in that behalf issued by the State of U.P., it would be held that respondent Corporation got virtually mislead in considering the application of the petitioner.
14. The petitioner does not dispute the judgment of the Apex Court (supra) nor, does she dispute that as per advertisement and application form that was filled in, she was required to submit caste certificate on the format of Government of India issued by the authority designated in that behalf by the Central Government. It is admitted that Jaats were not considered to be of OBC category prior to 2014 the Central Government naturally did not designate any authority to issue a backward certificate in favour of a person belonging to Jaat Community. Thus petitioner was admittedly not of OBC category and at the same time submitting an application and consideration thereof in that category does not arise. Since consideration of the candidature of the petitioner is based on wrong certificate, may be submitted bonafidely by petitioner but could not have been considered to be valid certificate for the purpose of conferring benefit of reservation and thus, he could not have been benefited with reservation of OBC category. The petitioner, therefore, even if has not misled on his part but authority got misled by the certificate that was produced by petitioner.
15. In view of above, we find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent in defence of order terminating the distributorship license of the petitioner and do not find any manifest error in the order passed by the authority to warrant interference.
16. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 7.1.2020
Sanjeev
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)