Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Mukesh Walaji Pal vs M/O Railways on 13 March, 2025
1 OA.673/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI. O.A.673/2015
Dated this Thursday the _13th day of March, 2025.
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative) Hon'ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial).
Shri Mukesh Walji Pol, Age 25 years, R/at At Post Chincholi, Tal & Dist. Jalgaon - 425 003. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railway, CSTM Mumbai - 400 001.
2. The Railway Recruitment Cell, through Chairman, Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, CST, Mumbai - 400 010.
3. Senior Personal Officer (RT), Railway Recruitment Cell, Central Railway, Chief Project Manager (Conv) Office Building, Wadibunder, P.D'Mello Road, Mumbai - 400 010. .. Respondents.
( By Advocate Shri Rishi Ashok, proxy for Shri B.K. Ashok ). Order reserved on : 04.12.2024 Order pronounced on : 13.03.2025 2 OA.673/2015 9O R D E R Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J).
The present O.A. under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985, filed by the applicant for seeking the following reliefs:
"a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining hold and declare that the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by Respondent No.2 is illegal and liable to quash and set aside. And further hold that he had fulfilled all the conditions as per notification No.3/2013 and that he is eligible for appointment.
b. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to appoint the applicant on group D post with all consequential benefits.
c. Costs of the application be provided for.
d. Any other and further order as this Hon'ble
Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed."
2. Brief facts of the case are that according to the applicant he belongs to "Vanjari" caste which is recognized as an Other Backward Class (OBC) Community. The applicant's qualification is HSC Pass. It is stated that Respondent No.2 issued Advertisement of Employment Notice No.3/2013 dated 08.08.2013 for filling 3840 posts in Group 'D' post. Out of the 3840 posts, 915 posts were reserved for the OBC category. The qualification for the aforesaid post was Matriculation. Since the applicant was fulfilling all the requisite qualifications and was within the age limit as applicable to the OBC category on the date of issuance of the said notification and, therefore, he applied in pursuance of the said advertisement annexing all requisite 3 OA.673/2015 documents along with the application. Accordingly the applicant received a call letter in pursuance of the notification published for which an admit card was issued and in which the category mentioned was OBC. 2.1. On 16.11.2014, he appeared in the written test. After successful in the written test, a separate admit card was issued for appearance in PET Test and after successful in PET Test, the applicant was called for verification of documents on 05.08.2015. It is stated that on the date of verification of documents the applicant misplaced the Non-Creamy layer certificate of 2013 which was issued to him in the year 2013. The applicant expressed his inability to produce the document as he had misplaced the said certificate. The applicant further requested to grant him some time to produce the said requisite documents. However, the verifying officer accepted the documents and instructed the applicant to submit the said certificate to the higher authority with an application as soon as the said certificate is traceable but not more than a month as the process of recruitment will take a month or so.
2.2. It is further stated that the applicant immediately went to his native place and searched out the certificate which he got and, therefore, on receipt of the certificate the applicant immediately approached the respondents office on 25.08.2015, however, the office of Respondent No.3 blindly refused to accept the certificate of the applicant as the date of submitting the documents was 05.08.2015 and thereafter no documents could be accepted. 4 OA.673/2015 2.3. Meanwhile, vide impugned communication dated 24.08.2015, it was informed to the applicant that the candidature of the applicant is cancelled on the ground that he is considered in general category as the applicant has failed to produce the OBC/Creamy layer certificate of 2013. Therefore, the present O.A. has been submitted.
2.4. It is submitted by the applicant that from the initial stage of the recruitment process the applicant was considered as OBC Candidate. However, on the relevant date on 05.08.2015 he could not submit the said certificate as the same was misplaced. However, after searching and receipt of the certificate the prayer was made to the authority to accept the same. However, vide impugned communication dated 24.08.2015 his candidature was cancelled. The impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the O.A. may be allowed after quashing the order dated 24.08.2015 by holding that the applicant had fulfilled all the conditions as per the notification no.3/2013.
3. After notice, the respondents have filed reply and contested the O.A. 3.1. It is stated that the applicant had not enclosed the requisite OBC/Non- Creamy layer certificate in the Central Government format along with the application form at the initial stage. According to the provisions, the applicant was to be treated as General candidate. The applicant had scored 59.08 marks and the cut off marks for general candidate is 65.32. Had he 5 OA.673/2015 secured marks up to the general standard he could have found place in the panel. The Railway Recruitment Cell has not made any discrimination to any candidate.
3.2. It is further stated that the Railway Recruitment Cell had received 11,23,121 applications and out of that 1,69,982 OBC candidates were called as General candidates for further recruitment process, as they did not fulfil the requisite condition to be treated as OBC candidates against the Employment Notice No.3/2013. There is possibility that the candidates, whose applications were to be rejected an/or ought to have been called as General candidate, may have been inadvertently called for the recruitment process as OBC. In terms of para 6.10 of the employment notice no.3/2013 RRC/Central Railway shall reject application for non-fulfilling the requisite criteria at any stage of recruitment and if erroneously appointed such candidates shall be summarily removed from service. 3.3. It is submitted that the applicant in the present O.A. seems to be aggrieved on account of rejection of the applicant's candidature allegedly at the stage of recruitment process for non production of non-creamy layer certificate for the year 2013-14 as prescribed in the said Notification No.3/2013 dated 08.08.2013, which reads as "The OBC candidates should attach non-creamy layer certificate for the year 2013-14 in Central Government format only or the said application will be treated as invalid as per para 8.18. Besides, it is also mentioned in Note below para 8.18 that 6 OA.673/2015 OBC candidates not attaching non-creamy layer certificate for the year 2013-14 in Central Government format shall be treated as General Candidate subject to their fulfilling age criteria. The applicant has admitted and also submitted in writing that he was not having the OBC-Non-Creamy certificate for the year 2013-14, therefore, the applicant had enclosed the OBC/Non-Creamy certificate for the year 2009-10. Due to this, it is seen that the applicant had violated the instruction as mentioned in Para 3.9 of the employment notice no.3/2013.
3.4. The Railway Recruitment Cell/Central Railway against the said employment notice no.3/2013 had received 1123121 applications, and out of that 318944 applications were rejected. In this connection, it is stated that in the mass recruitment, where applications are received in large scale, some errors in deciding eligibility would be inevitable and in a few cases same are also inherited in further recruitment process. Considering this aspect, it has been brought to the notice of all candidates vide para 6.10. of the employment notice no.03/2013 that RRC/CR shall reject application of non-fulfilling the requisite criteria at any stage of recruitment and if erroneously appointed such candidates shall be summarily removed from service. It is also mentioned that there is a provision under recruitment rules to check the rejected applications at the initial stage itself, before the eligibility list to call the candidates for written test is finalised. 3.5. It is submitted that there is no provision to check the applications 7 OA.673/2015 which are made eligible at the initial scrutiny stage, including those applications which are made eligible erroneously. These, eligible applications are thereafter scrutinized only before the final stage of recruitment process, that is, when the candidates who have passed in the written examination and physical efficiency test and are coming under the zone of consideration as per the vacancies notified, are called for document verification and medical examination. In the instant case, the applicant was erroneously made eligible to be called as on OBC candidate at an initial scrutiny stage itself and thus, came to be called for written test and further recruitment process as an OBC candidate. However, this error was detected at the first possible stage thereafter and corrective action was taken accordingly.
3.6. It is further submitted that the error inadvertently crept in his recruitment cases is that though applicant had enclosed OBC/Non-Creamy Certificate in Central Government format for the year 2009, applicant had been called as on OBC Candidate till document verification, instead of consideration of applicant as an UR (General) candidate, in terms of Note below the Para 8.18 of the Employment Notice No.03/2013, and this had been detected before directing applicant for Medical Examination. Hence, applicant cannot claim for extending the benefit of OBC quota against the said error. The applicant was to be treated as general candidate as per the note below para no.8.18 of the said employment notice no.3/2013. 8 OA.673/2015 3.7. The applicant had scored 59.08 marks and the cut off marks from general candidate is 65.32. The applicant had secured less marks, therefore, cannot be placed in the panel. One post is guarded as per the interim order dated 27.11.2015 of Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai. However, in view of the above said true position of facts and law, the exparte order is liable to be vacated in the interest of justice. Therefore, on the basis of reply, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant explaining and elaborating the stand and respondents have also filed sur-rejoinder. 4.1. In sur-rejoinder the respondents have placed on record, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Sarwan Ram & Anr. passed in C.A.No.9388/2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.706/2014].
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shri V.A. Nagrani, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that in pursuance of the Advertisement No.3/2013 dated 08.08.2013, since the applicant was fulfilling all the requisite qualification and belongs to OBC category, therefore, application was filed. Thereafter, applicant was called for written test, PET test and for document verification considering him to be a candidate belongs to OBC category. However, on date of document verification on 05.08.2015 non-creamy certificate of 2013 was not traceable / misplaced and, therefore, time was sought. It is further submitted that after 9 OA.673/2015 tracing the said certificate a prayer was made to Respondent No.3 on 25.08.2015 to accept the certificate of the year 2013, however, prior to that vide impugned dated 24.08.2015 it is informed to the applicant that due to non-submission of OBC / Creamy layer certificate of the year 2013 his candidature as an OBC candidate is cancelled and he has considered in the general category. It is contended that the impugned action and order of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable.
6. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on judgment passed in case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Ms.Pushpa Vs. Government, NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Rishi Ashok argued on behalf of Standing Counsel vehemently argued on the basis of reply. It is contended that in Advertisement dated 08.08.2013 (Annex-A-3) Clause 3.8 specifically provides that candidate belonging OBC Community should produce a non-creamy layer certificate in Central Government format only for 2013-14 in the format in Annexure-B of the notification. Further, Clause A provides that if the requisite documents are not submitted then the said application shall be treated as invalid application. Clause 8.18 was in respect of enclosing non-creamy layer certificate. It is contended that along with application form, the applicant has submitted certificate of the year 10 OA.673/2015 2009 in which the caste of the applicant shown as "Lad Vanjari". Although the applicant was permitted to participate in the selection process upto the stage of PET test. However, on the date of document verification i.e. 05.08.2015, applicant has failed to produce the requisite non-creamy layer certificate of 2013 and, therefore, as per Clause 8.18 Note the authority rightly treated the applicant as General Candidate and since the applicant had scored less than cut off marks of general category candidate and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the applicant.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record.
9. In the present case, Employment Notice No.RRC/CR/3/201 dated 08.08.2013 was issued by Respondent No.2 of which relevant clauses are as under:-
"3.9. Candidates belonging to OBC community should produce a non-creamy layer certificate in Central Government format only for 2013-14 in the format given in Annexure-B of this notification.
....
6.1 Candidates before applying should carefully read the instructions and ensure that he/she fulfils all eligibility conditions at the time of submission of applications.
....
8. INVALID APPLICATIONS:
Candidates are requested to read all instructions thoroughly before sending their applications. Otherwise their applications are likely to be rejected on one or more of the following reasons:
8.1 Applications received after the closing date & time of employment notification.11 OA.673/2015
8.2 Postal Orders / Demand Drafts not enclosed or less fee enclosed or invalid IPO/DD i.e. IPO/DD purchased before the date of issue of employment notice.
8.3 Applications not in the prescribed format or which are incomplete/in-
eligible in any manner.
8.4 Candidates not in possession of the required educational qualifications on the date of applying or are underaged/overaged as on 01.01.2014. 8.5 More than once application submitted by the same candidate. 8.6 Applications without coloured photo/latest coloured phot not being affixed.
8.7 Applications without the declaration being reproduced by the candidates in the application.
8.8 Applications with declaration reproduced by the candidates in CAPITAL letters.
8.9 Applications without signature or with signatures in CAPITAL letters. 8.10 Left hand thumb impression not affixed or is blurred/smudged. 8.11 Copies of required enclosures as mentioned in para 7 not enclosed. 8.12 More than once application submitted in single envelope. 8.13 Applications which are not addressed to the Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment), Railway Recruitment Cell, Central Railway. 8.14 Applications which are filled in a language other than Hindi/English. 8.15 Any other irregularity noticed and considered invalid by the RRC/CR. 8.16 Identification marks column not filled up in application form. 8.17 Candidates name figuring in debarred list.
8.18 OBC Candidates not enclosing non-creamy layer certificate for 2013-14 in Central Government format (Annexure-B) Note: OBC candidates not attaching non-creamy layer certificate for the year 2013-14 in Central Government format shall be treated as General candidate subject to their fulfilling age criteria."
10. In the present case, it is the contention of the respondents that along with application form, the applicant has produced non-creamy layer certificate of the year 2009, whereas the requirement was of the year 2013- 12 OA.673/2015 2014 and, therefore, the impugned communication dated 24.08.2015 is proper. Whereas the contention of the applicant is that Certificate of OBC / Non-creamy layer certificate of 2013-14 was not traceable at the relevant point of time, however, upto the stage of document verification i.e. 05.08.2015, the applicant was treated as OBC candidate. It is further contended that on 12.08.2015, he has submitted requisite certificate of the year 2013. However, without taking into consideration the impugned communication was issued.
11. It may be true that the respondents had treated many OBC candidates to be general candidate as per the clause of notification as they did not fulfil the requisite condition to be treated as OBC candidate against the Employment Notice No.03/2013. However, if the said candidates accepted the decision of the respondents and did not challenge it further. Whereas the applicant is challenging the said action, therefore, merely for their action/inaction, the right of the applicant, if available cannot be jeopardize. In the present case at the one hand it is the stand of the respondents that in mass recruitment, where applications are received in large, some errors in deciding eligibility would be inevitable. Therefore, it is clear that for any lapse on their part they are seeking condition, whereas for the procedural lapse of the applicant they have treated the applicant's case strictly within the four corners of Employment Notice. In the present case fact remains that till 05.08.2015, the applicant was treated as OBC 13 OA.673/2015 candidate and he has submitted the reasons for non-filling and non- availability of OBC/Non-Creamy Layer certificate of the year 2013-14 at that point of time. Therefore, the question arises whether for procedural lapse on the part of the applicant his right of fair consideration can be curtailed or not?
12. At this stage it is relevant here to reproduce observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 as under:-
"14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University. The learned Single Judge in Pushpa also considered another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the SC and ST categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate.
15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney has been extracted in Pushpa along with the speech delivered by Dr.Ambedkar in the Consistuent Assembly and reads thus: (Pushpa case, SCC OnLine Del para
9) "9. ... "251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the Draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for 14 OA.673/2015 representation in public administration, Dr. Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to "a minority of seats", lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it.
Dr. Ambedkar stated:
"... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a 'proper look-in' so to say into the administration. ... Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity. ... Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, *must be confined to a minority of seats*. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation. ... we have to safeguard who things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State...." [Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.7, pp. 701-02 (1948-1949).] These words embody the raison d'etre of reservation and its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, insofar as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal.' (Indra Sawhney case, SCC pp. 433-34, 15 OA.673/2015 para 251)'
16. In Pushpa, relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh have also been extracted, which read thus: (Pushpa case, SCC OnLine Del para 11) "11. ... '15. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11.6.1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including SC category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for SC category, the requirement is that a person should belong to SC category. If a person is SC he is so by birth and not be acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to SC category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30.6.1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30.6.1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.
16. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the fundamental rights and directive principles of the Constitution, in particular Articles 14, 14, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of th elife of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.' (Tej Pal Singh case, SCC OnLine Del paras 15-16)"
17. Further, in Pushpa, relevant portion from the judgment of Valsamma Paul case has also been extracted, which reads as under: (Pushpa case, SCC OnLine Del para 11) 16 OA.673/2015 "11. ... '17. ... "21. The Constitution through its Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles created a secular State based on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, striking a balance between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian social order." (Valsamma Paul case, SCC pp. 560-61, para 21)' (Tej Pal Singh case, SCC OnLine Del para 17)"
18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in Pushpa is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) is hereby restored."
13. The aforesaid judgment was referred by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Rohit Kumar and Another Vs. Union of 17 OA.673/2015 India and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1219 and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi taking note of Clasue 5(c)(i) of the Advertisement Notice No.1/2022 held that there is no merit in the said Writ Petition. The relevant clause 5(c)(i) reads as under:-
"7. Clause 5(c)(i) deals with document verification and provides that all the information provided in the online application has to match with all the original documents. It reads as under:
"(c) Stage III.- Based on the performance in Stage I and Stage II, an all-India merit list will be prepared and e-admit card for Stage III (final medicals at INS Chilka) will be issued as per the vacancies available and ratio decided by ICG. The duration of Stage III is 1 to 2 days. Stage III involves following:
(i) Document verification (pass/fail).- All the information provided in the online application has to match with all the original documents like grades X/XII/diploma mark sheet/photo identity card/caste certificate/individual subject and aggregate marks. Any inconsistency in all the documents and application with respect to 'name, date of birth, parent's name, percentage of marks, validity of documents, caste certificate details, etc.' will lead to failure in document verification and the candidature will be cancelled. The date of issue of all documents has to be the closing date of application or any date prior to closing date of application. The validity of all the uploaded documents has to be at least up to 30.4.2022. The candidate can fail in document verification in Stage III even if he is pass during document verification Stage II. In case of any mismatch of information provided in the application form, document uploaded (at online application Stages I and II) and original documents produced for physical verification at Stage III than the candidature will be cancelled. Common reasons for rejection during document verification can be checked at https://joinindiancoastguard.cdas.in/assets/img/downloa ds/doc/reasonForRejection.pdf."
14. In the said case of Rohit Kumar on which the respondents have 18 OA.673/2015 heavily relied Clause 5(c) (i) specifically provides that in case failure in document verification the candidature will be cancelled. Whereas, in the present case in Employment Notice, Clause 8 provides that candidates are requested to read all instructions thoroughly before sending their applications. Otherwise their applications are likely to be rejected. Meaning thereby the consequences provided in both the selection process are different.
15. In case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (supra), Para 7 of the said judgment is relevant, which is reproduced herein below:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing th enecessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature."
16. It is pertinent to observe that at the one hand in fair selection process, it has to be seen that ineligible candidate may not be selected and on the other hand the eligible person may not be deprived of his legitimate right of 19 OA.673/2015 consideration of his case for selection on technical or procedural ground. We find support of this reasoning from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda (Supra).
17. In the present case, photocopy of the requisite certificate of the year 2013-14 is on record as Annex-A-6, which prima-facie shows that the applicant belongs to "Vanjari" caste which is recognized as Backward Caste. Although it is true that the said certificate was not attached with application form, but fact remains that, if applicant belongs to Vanjari caste which comes under the Backward Caste, then denial of his claim would be arbitrary and unreasonable.
18. Under these circumstances, the present O.A. is disposed of with the following directions:
a. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the Certificate No.MAG/SR/4656/2013 issued to the applicant by Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon (Annex-A-6) and in the said process if required call report from the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon.
b. Needless to mention that only after satisfying with the requirement of Certificate (Annex-A-6) with original and report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, the case of the applicant may be considered against the vacant post in terms of Interim Order dated 27.11.2015 of this Tribunal, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, this direction of consideration 20 OA.673/2015 shall not be construed, that any declaration has been granted in favour of the applicant by this Tribunal. The Competent Authority is free to take decision as per law.
19. With the above, the O.A. stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
20. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A). H