Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In reply, Mr. Vijay Kinger, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to file his latest OBC certificate as per the requirement specified in the advertisement, whereby it was clearly stipulated that the applicants should submit their OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, issued in their favour within a period of three years prior to the date of closing. The learned counsel also submits that the OBC certificate dated 31.10.2011 filed by the petitioner was of no consequence as the same was filed much after the deadline fixed in the advertisement and therefore, the petitioner was rightly treated as UR category candidate, in which he had secured much lower marks than the last selected candidate in UR male category, i.e. in the written examination the petitioner had secured 152 marks while the last selected candidate in the UR category had secured 166.25 marks. The learned counsel also submits that the notice inviting applications from the candidates also clearly stipulated that the candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination and it was further made explicitly clear that the admission to all stages of the examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. The notice also stipulated that if on verification, at any time before or after the written examination and interview, it is found that they do not fulfil one of the eligibility conditions; their candidature for the examination will be cancelled by the Commission. The learned counsel also submits that the notice also contained an important instruction that the candidates should be in possession of the certificates in the format prescribed by the Government of India in support of their claim at the time of application, though the copies of the certificates will be sought only after the written examination. Another important caveat in the notice was that the applicant should have an OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate issued within three years of the date of closing. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had failed to produce a valid OBC certificate issued in his favour of the specified period within the stipulated time therefore, the respondents were left with no option but to treat the petitioner in the UR category and unfortunately his marks in the written examination Paper-I and II were much lower than the marks secured by the last selected candidate in the said category.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them.

9. This petitioner has not been considered for appointment in the OBC category as he had failed to furnish his latest OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate as per the requirement laid down in the advertisement instead the petitioner filed an OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate which was issued in his favour in the year 2003. It is not disputed between the parties that if the candidature of the petitioner is considered under the category of OBC then he had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the OBC male category at least in BSF, CRPF and in SSB. The reason for denial of appointment to the petitioner was that he had secured lower marks in his written examination Paper-I and II, i.e. 152 marks while the cut off fixed for the UR category in written examination Paper- I and II was 166.25 marks, However, we note that the petitioner was called for an interview on 14.06.2011 at which time he had produced all his original certificates including his OBC certificate. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. If there was any deficiency or shortcomings in his OBC certificate, then the best course for the respondents was to inform the petitioner about it i.e. the certificate was not issued within a period of three years from the closing date. The petitioner was interviewed as an OBC candidate as per the Call Letter received by him. Even after his interview, the said deficiency was not pointed out by the respondents. A little effort on the part of the respondents could have resolved the issue gracefully.

10. It has been poignantly observed: "An unemployed existence is a worse negation of life than death itself"- Jose Ortega Y Gasset. Our country is progressing by leaps and bounds, but unemployment continues to be a daunting problem. Fear of unemployment, far from being abolished, is felt as strongly as ever. We must be conscious of the fact that in our country to get an employment in any Government or Public Body is like a dream come true and therefore, recruiting bodies like the SSC owe a public duty to see to it that appointment to the meritorious candidates are not denied on flimsy grounds or by adopting any hyper technical approach. We are not suggesting here that these recruiting bodies should not adhere to the instructions or guidelines incorporated in the recruitment rules or in the advertisement but certainly where there is room to take a liberal approach, like in the present case, where the respondents knew fully well that the petitioner belongs to an OBC category but did not produce his latest Non-Creamy Layer OBC Certificate, he could have easily been given a reminder for producing the same. The respondents, however, did not choose this path and adopted the easy route to deny appointment to the petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner failed to file a Non-Creamy Layer OBC certificate issued in his favour within a period of three years from the closing date.

15. ..................
16. ...................
17. ...................
18. ...................
19. In any case the submission of OBC certificate for reservation under the OBC category cannot be equated with acquisition of the educational qualification. A candidate becomes eligible under the OBC category, the day the caste he belongs to is notified by the appropriate authority as a backward class. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasized that whether a candidate belongs to a creamy layer or not is to be determined only on issuance of a certificate, however, taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances, in our view the candidates not belonging to a creamy layer whose caste is notified as a backward class becomes entitled for reservation under the OBC category and submission of the requisite certificate is only a ministerial act which cannot be equated with acquisition of educational qualification to become eligible for a post. Consequently, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents/candidates became eligible for selection in the OBC category on the dates the certificates were issued by the appropriate authorities, cannot be accepted. This plea in the present facts and circumstances should also be not accepted because in all the cases except in the case of Rekhawati (Supra) the candidates had applied for OBC certificate before the closing date for submission of forms which was 29th October, 2007. In the circumstances for the delay on the part of the authorities in preparing and giving the OBC certificate, it cannot be inferred or held that the candidates were not eligible for selection under the OBC category.