Allahabad High Court
Hardaul Singh vs Staff Selection Commissioner(Central ... on 16 January, 2013
Author: B. Amit Sthalekar
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43634 of 2012 Petitioner :- Hardaul Singh Respondent :- Staff Selection Commissioner(Central Region) Alld, & Another Petitioner Counsel :- V.K. Singh,Manvendra Nath Singh Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I.,Bal Mukund,S.C. Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of constable in the Central Industrial Security Force as an OBC candidate.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued in the Employment News dated 5.2.2011for recruitment for the post of constable (G.D.) in the Border Security Force, Central Reserve Protection Force and the Central Industrial Security Force by the Staff Selection Commission. The complete advertisement has not been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition but same has been filed by the respondents with their counter affidavit filed as Annexure CA-1. However, the condition mentioned in para 4(C) of the advertisement was that the caste certificate for candidates claiming OBC status should have been obtained within three years before the closing date i.e. 4.3.2011. The Note-I of para-4 (C) further provided that closing date i.e. 04.03.2011 for receipt of application will be treated as the date of reckoning for OBC and creamy layer status of the candidate. The petitioner did not possess the OBC certificate as on 4.3.2011 and he appeared in the written examination held on 5.6.2011 under the Roll No.3001995. His case is that an Admit Card was issued to him for appearing in the written examination (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). In it he was shown as an OBC candidate and was allowed to appear in the examination. The petitioner was also allowed to appear in the physical test where also he was also shown as an OBC candidate. However, when the result was declared, the petitioner was shown under the List of Unreserved Category candidate meaning thereby he has been shown as a General Candidate and in that situation he has been shown as not qualified for appointment on the ground of being over age. According to the petitioner if he was shown as an OBC candidate he would be eligible for grant of relaxation in age as an OBC candidate.
I have heard Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bal Mukund, learned counsel for the respondents.
Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the OB.C. Certificate showing the petitioner as belonging to the OBC was issued only on 31.1.2012 by the Competent Authority in the prescribed format, and, therefore, on the last date for filing of the application for OBC candidate i.e. 4.3.2011 he was not in possession of the OBC certificate and, therefore, he had not filed the same.
He, however, submits that the petitioner had submitted the certificate of OBC issued by the State Govt. within time and the same should have been taken into consideration.
The submission of the learned counsel is misconceived. The recruitment in question being for a post in the Central Government the petitioner is required to submit an OBC caste certificate issued in the Central Government format inasmuch as a person may be belonging to a particular reserved caste in one State but that caste may not be a reserved caste in another State. Hence recognition as a member belonging to a reserved category by the Competent Authority in format prescribed by `the Central Government is absolutely essential and a caste certificate issued by a particular State is not sufficient. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130, Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others (Constitution Bench) and (2005) 3 SCC 1, S. Pushpa and others vs. Sivachanmugavelu and others; (2009) 15 SCC 458, Subhash Chandra and others vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others.
The Supreme Court in the case reported in 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 706, Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and another has held as follows:-
"2. It is contended for the appellant that since the appellant had been appointed by the duly constituted Departmental Selection Committee and as on the date of interview since the appellant had the qualification, her selection and appointment cannot be said to be illegal. We find no force in the contention. It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates who possessed of all the qualification as on that date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to rules. Since the appellant had not possessed the Physical Training Instructor qualifications as on that date, her illegal consideration by the Board and recommendation for appointment and the appointment made in furtherance thereof are illegal. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel in that behalf."
Further in (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 18, Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another , the Supreme Court has again held that if the advertisement provides cut of date for submitting an application then that will be the date by which the applications are required to be submitted and not on that date. Para-6 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"The Review petitions came up for final hearing on March 3, 1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the 33 respondent So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated Ist September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by the Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued /published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgement. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of low and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview".
Para 4 of the advertisement provides in clear and unambiguous terms that the Caste Certificate was to be submitted at the time of application in the format prescribed by the Government of India. Admittedly, this certificate was submitted by the petitioner only on 31.1.2012, i.e. after the prescribed date of 4.3.2011. This being the admitted position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner since the undisputed position is that last date/closing date for submission of applications under Note-1 to para-4(C) of the advertisement for OBC was 4.3.2011 and on that date the petitioner was not in possession of OBC certificate in the prescribed format. If any concession is granted to the petitioner for filing the caste certificate beyond the prescribed date, it would cause serious hardship to other candidates, who have been deprived of such benefit of filing their caste certificate beyond the closing date. It would be in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.1.2013 Asha