Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In the rejoinder affidavit, petitioner has disputed this fact and in para 6 thereof, it is said that a declaration certificate was appended to the form and a copy thereof is filed as Annexure 2 to the rejoinder affidavit.

9. Sri Tarun Varma, learned counsel appearing for respondents, stated that the declaration by applicant, about O.B.C. status, in format at Annexure-E to the advertisement, as provided in para 8 (B) (g) (v), was not appended along with application form and, therefore, his candidature as O.B.C. was rejected in view of Para 8 (B) (h) (x) of the advertisement read with the Railway Board Circular dated 16.8.2011 and he was treated in general category which was also a mistake, since he was overage as a general candidate. He sought to fortify the submission by placing before this Court original application form of petitioner in which self declaration form in Appendix-E is not appended with the application form.

10. Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, on the contrary, has seriously disputed this fact and claims that O.B.C. certificate in the prescribed format as also the self declaration form in Format-E was duly appended by him along with application form. He drew my attention to Annexure 2 to the rejoinder affidavit and para 6 thereof stating that the said declaration was in Format-E but it appears that respondents have lost the said document somewhere and taking advantage of their own wrong or fault, are trying to victimize the petitioner. He contended that for the fault of respondents, petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

11. The short question up for consideration is whether petitioner is liable to be considered as O.B.C. candidate or not.

12. There is a serious factual dispute, whether the self declaration in Annexure-E to the advertisement, was actually appended by petitioner along with his application form or not. The O.B.C. Caste certificate in the prescribed format-D is admittedly a part of petitioner's application form and on this aspect there is no dispute.

13. At this stage, considering divergent stand taken by both the parties, from pleadings, straight way, it is difficult to hold, whether self declaration From-E was actually submitted by petitioner along with his application form or not. Since here is a case of oath versus oath, this Court now will look into circumstantial evidence to find out truth.

"As per Railway Board's Guidelines considered as UR instead of OBC due insufficient documents."

18. This letter also makes it very clear that the document submitted by petitioner claiming O.B.C. status were deficient and hence his claim for O.B.C. was not accepted by respondents. At this stage of viva voce also, there is nothing to show that the petitioner made any attempt to remove the deficiency. In his letter dated 18.2.2013 also he has not said anything regarding the aforesaid declaration certificate. For the first time, petitioner claimed to have submitted a letter dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) in which he has requested respondents to accept his declaration certificate along with other documents. In this letter also petitioner has not claimed anywhere that the self declaration in Form-E was already submitted by him along with his application form and there was no deficiency. In fact, he never contested this issue and on the contrary, this letter of 1.3.2013 clearly shows that when he got information that self declaration in Form-E was not appended along with his application form, he made an attempt to remove deficiency by supplying those documents. Had he submitted this document earlier, there was no reason for not mentioning this fact in the aforesaid letter. This circumstance is sufficient to bely the stand of petitioner that the document, i.e., self declaration in Form-E was submitted by him along with his application form and that being so, I find the stand of respondents to be reliable and creditworthy. Since there is a clear indication in the advertisement that in absence of requisite documents, application form itself would be rejected, I have no hesitation in holding that failure on the part of petitioner in observing the same, has rightly been held fatal to consider his candidature as O.B.C. The mere fact that despite his being overage as general candidate, he was allowed to appear in various tests cannot help him in rendering his candidature to be valid when, admittedly, as a general candidate he is overage. The entire aspect can be considered from another angle. As per petitioner's own stand, he applied as O.B.C. candidate. Respondents rejected his claim and did not accept him as an O.B.C. candidate. They made it very clear and allowed the petitioner to appear in the recruitment as a general candidate. This fact was clearly made known to petitioner by mentioning in the call letter issued to petitioner permitting him to appear in the written examination. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner ever disputed or contested this action/decision of respondents in rejecting petitioner's candidature as O.B.C. and allowing him to appear in the recruitment as general candidate. In fact, he acquiesced to the action of respondents and appeared as a general candidate. At least, there is nothing on record to show that in any known manner, petitioner contested the decision of respondents in rejecting petitioner's status as O.B.C. and allowing him to participate as general candidate. The situation continued when another call letter for viva voce was issued and there also it was mentioned that petitioner's claim as O.B.C. has been rejected and he is being allowed to appear in the selection as a general candidate. Here also, there is no overt action on the part of petitioner to challenge the aforesaid decision before any appropriate forum including a Court of law. In the so called representation, which the petitioner submitted after appearing in the viva voce, there also petitioner has not stated anywhere that the requisite declaration was submitted by him along with the application form and the respondents must trace out such declaration or allow the petitioner to file a duplicate or second copy thereof. Contents of petitioner's representation, on the contrary, show that he supplied the aforesaid declaration for the first time with the request to respondents to accept the same. This fact is sufficient to demonstrate that even while submitting the said representation, petitioner did not claim at all that the due declaration in format Appendix-E was ever submitted by him at the time of filing his application form. Respondents, repeatedly, time and again have made it know to petitioner that his candidature has been rejected as O.B.C. This decision has not been challenged and there is no relief sought in this writ petition that the aforesaid decision communicated to petitioner vide frequently issued call letters should be quashed. In absence of any challenge to the said decision, the question of directing respondents to consider the petitioner as O.B.C., even otherwise cannot arise.