Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 October, 2020
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 83 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4419 of 2020 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
1. Heard Shri Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jagdish Singh Bundela, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature in the Ex-Servicemen category for appointment on the post of Constable in the Civil Police and PAC.
3. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post of constable in the Civil Police and the Provincial Armed Constabulary, in response to the recruitment proceedings initiated with advertisement dated 16.11.2018, under the Ex-Servicemen category.
4. The last date of submission of application form was 08.12.2018. The application form of the petitioner was duly accepted. The petitioner was declared successful in initial phases of the examinations. The later phases of the examination were for scrutiny of the documents and physical standards test. Only the domicile certificates issued on or before 08.12.2018 were liable for consideration. The domicile certificate had to be tendered at the time of scrutiny of documents and was not required to be submitted along with the application form.
5. At the time of scrutiny of documents the petitioner produced a domicile certificate issued on 02.02.2019. The date of the said domicile certificate was subsequent to the last date of submission of the application form and was liable to be rejected.
6. On this foot the petitioner's candidature under the Ex-Servicemen category was cancelled.
7. It is not disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioner in possession of a domicile certificate dated 08.02.2018, which rendered him eligible. However, on the date of verification of the testimonials, the petitioner could not produce the domicile certificate dated 08.02.2018.
8. Last date of submission of application forms, is the cut off date for possessing eligibility qualifications. The requirement of submitting documents alongwith the application form is of an imperative nature. The sanctity of the last date of submission of application form is essentially to limit the eligibility of the candidates.
9. The last date of submission of application forms and the date for scrutiny of documents do not stand on the same footing. The former date is fixed in the advertisement and is determinative of eligibility. On the other hand the date of scrutiny of domicile certificates alongwith other eligibility testimonials has a separate purpose. The date of scrutiny of documents does not have a bearing on eligibility. It is only for verification of preexisting testimonials of admitted eligibility. At times, the dates may be varied by the authorities, without offending the selection. This is not to suggest that the time line of the recruitment process is not liable to be respected.
10. The date for scrutiny of documents was not fixed in the advertisement and was kept open. The lack of certainty in the said date is evident from perusal of the relevant part of the advertisement is extracted hereinunder:
"(6). आरक्षण / आयु में छूट का लाभ चाहने वाले उत्तर प्रदेश के आरक्षित श्रेणी के अभ्यर्थी आवेदन में अपनी श्रेणी अवश्य अंकित करें तथा निर्धारित प्रारूप पर सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा जारी प्रमाण पत्र आवेदन करने से पूर्व प्राप्त कर लें एवं जब उनसे अपेक्षा की जाये तब वे उसे प्रस्तुत करें । राज्य सरकार द्वारा निर्धारित प्रारूप के अतिरिक्त किसी अन्य प्रारूप में प्रस्तुत प्रमाण पत्र मान्य नहीं होगा।"
11. The recruitment process in a public service, is intended to appoint the best and most eligible candidates, and also faithfully implement the reservation policy of the State Eligibility criteria is inviolable, and hence the cut off date in the advertisement for submitting applicable forms is inflexible. In later phases of the recruitment process in hand, documents of eligibility are scrutinized. Only preexisting testimonials in conformity with the declarations made in the application form and consistent with the requirements in the advertisement are liable to be considered. Further only candidates who have cleared the initial competitive stages of the recruitment process enter the subsequent stages. The subsequent stages of the recruitment are in the likeness of due diligence process into the authenticity of the testimonials of the candidates.
12. Hence, in these later selection stages room to correct any human errors has to be provided for to ensure that meritorious candidates are not denied appointments on the foot of technical defaults or marginal human errors. Current practices in recruitment processes evidence that authorities include a margin for correction of such human errors. This with a view to prevent ouster of meritorious and eligible candidates and faithful implementation of reservation policy. This also ensures fairness, transparency, and makes the recruitment process compliant to norms of justice. Calling for objections to the provisional answers is an example of this trend. The opportunity of providing an appeal against medical board opinions, is another instance of creation of an environment to reduce exclusion of eligible candidates by human errors.
13. Of course, such opportunity should not adversely affect the recruitment schedule. The avenues of appeals or provisions for an opportunity to rectify marginal human errors, should be incorporated in the recruitment process. This moreso when aggrieved candidates are undisputedly eligible for participating in the recruitment.
14. The promise of equality under Article 14 and equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India do not pre-suppose existence of a homogeneous society. On the contrary both judicial authorities and provisions in the Constitution like Article 16(4) reflect the quest of an egalitarian Constitution in an unequal and heterogeneous society to achieve equality.
15. To achieve the aim of equality often requires representation to lawfully classified groups of citizenry. Ex-servicemen is one such category of citizenry which has been organized as one well defined class by the legislature and the executive alike. There is good reason for classification of ex-servicemen into a separate class. Ex-servicemen as a class have spent prime years of their lives in conditions of extreme privations and separations from family in the service of the nation. Long years of coloured service in the armed forces ingrain in them the ethos of service before self. The Indian Armed Forces are amongst the most professional and best trained in the world. National treasure is spent in training of servicemen to achieve peak levels of proficiency. Rites of defence services equip the servicemen to reach highest standards of excellence and leadership in different walks of life.
16. With this rich background behind them, servicemen after hanging up their uniforms turn into most valuable national assets. The nation must derive full benefit from the values imbibed over long years of coloured service, professional training and leadership qualities.
17. Ex-servicemen are well placed to make peerless contribution to the civil services including the civil police services. The nation cannot afford to fritter away or lose these assets by bad policy and arbitrary decisions.
18. There is another aspect to the matter. Most of ex-servicemen superannuate at an early age. They lose their regular source of income at a young age, when their responsibilities to their families are at a peak.
19. By employing ex-servicemen the State achieves manifold objectives. Reemployment after superannuation absorbs the turbulence arising from early superannuation from military service. It also helps in the integration of armed forces personnel in civil society after superannuation. They become part of the mainstream of national life. This policy supports the morale of our defence forces, and channelizes energies of young ex-servicemen in a positive direction.
20. The welfare of ex-servicemen can never be neglected by any society which values its freedom. A nation such as ours which has suffered from long centuries of foreign rule, and faces extant security threats cannot ignore the custodians of the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. The ex-servicemen did not have much representation in the State and were denied a proper look in into the civil administration. This created a sense of isolation, which was not in the interest of the nation. The State Government is doing its part by making endeavours to rectify this anomaly. Though more needs to be done, much undoubtedly has been done.
21. Principles evolved by courts for administering benefits of reservation to various communities, can also be applied to the class of Ex-Servicemen. Reservation cannot be construed by the authorities in a pedantic manner. It has to be implemented in a fashion to achieve the object of reservations.
22. In the facts of this case the denial of the benefits of ex-Servicemen, to the petitioner was not on the ground that he did not possess the domicile certificate which was consistent with the terms of the advertisement. But because he could not produce it at the time of scrutiny of documents.
23. In this case the recruitment programme is yet to attain finality. Nothing has been asserted in the counter affidavit that the grant of a short time or an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the requisite domicile certificate will create disarray in the recruitment process.
24. On the contrary, the refusal of the authorities to grant such opportunity to the petitioner, resulted in a failure on part of the authorities to implement the policy of reservation for ex-servicemen with an even hand.
25. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman who retired after years of coloured service in the Indian Army on the rank of Hawaldar on 31.12.2018. He was a Gunner. The respondents were liable to give him another opportunity to produce the domicile certificate dated 08.02.2018. Particularly, since the validity of the aforesaid certificate was not disputed.
26. In light of the preceding discussions, I find that the respondents erred in law by failing to grant the petitioner an opportunity to produce the eligibility certificate dated 08.02.2018, which he claims is in his possession.
27. The action of the authorities in denying the benefit of ex-servicemen category to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal.
28. In such view of the matter, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2-Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow.
29. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.2-Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, to execute the following directions:
I. The petitioner shall be given five weeks time to produce his domicile certificate dated 08.02.2018.
II. The case of the petitioner shall be processed as per law after considering the domicile certificate dated 08.02.2018 and ascertaining its authenticity.
30. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicate above.
Order Date :- 12.10.2020 Dhananjai Sharma