Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Pius, CJ This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure P-15, order passed by the District Collector/District Magistrate, West Sikkim cancelling the OBC Certificate No. 53/DCW dated 22.05.2002 issued to the petitioner Smt. Kusum Gurung, wife of Shri Dipendra Gurung (original of Annexure P-11 Certificate).

2. The respondents in this writ petition are State of Sikkim (R-1), District Collector/District Magistrate, West Sikkim (R-2), Mrs. Sujata Subba (R-3) and Secretary, Department of Personnel, Adm. Reforms & Training, Govt. of Sikkim (R-4). As pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner's case is that she, the 3rd respondent and others had applied for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) in the year 2002 and appeared in the competitive examination held in the year 2003 and that she stood 1st and 3rd respondent stood 3rd in the examination. According to the petitioner, she and another girl were appointed to the 2 vacancies earmarked for OBC (women) and OBC candidates. The 3rd respondent was not appointed as she stood only 3rd in the merit. Pursuant to the above selection the petitioner was appointed as ACF on 29.07.2004 and after six years she was promoted as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). The petitioner submits that she was selected on the strength of Annexure P-11 Certificate issued to her on the basis of OBC status of her husband. The petitioner points out that the 3rd respondent kept silent for 8 long years from 2002 till 2010 and thereafter filed Annexure P-13 complaint dated 16.07.2011, inter alia, contending that as the petitioner's OBC Certificate was issued based on the status of her husband, who is an OBC and not on the basis of her own parentage, Annexure P-11 Certificate issued to the petitioner was issued illegally and was liable to be cancelled. To Annexure P-13, complaint, the petitioner filed Annexure P-14 reply contending that no law prohibited for issuance of OBC Certificate to a woman on the basis of the status of her husband. According to the petitioner the only rule/law on the subject of issuing OBC Certificate is Annexure P-16 Notification No. 3/WD/95 dated 06.06.1995 issued by the Government of Sikkim in its Department of Welfare and that clause 4 of Annexure P-16 only requires OBC Certificate to be issued by DC/ ADC or SDM of the area. Annexure P-16 does not say that OBC Certificate has to be issued based on parentage of the candidate and not on the basis of caste status of the husband of a woman candidate.

6. The petitioner contends that Annexure P-11 Certificate was issued to her by the competent authority after due enquiry and verification on the status of her husband falling in Schedule III of Annexure P-17 which incorporates the status of husband and wife and therefore there was no fault at all on the part of the petitioner in the matter of issuance of OBC Certificate, Annexure P-11, to her by District Collector, West. The petitioner urges that if the 2nd respondent had told her that OBC Certificate cannot be issued to her on the basis of the status of her husband but can be issued on the basis of her parentage, then the petitioner could have produced document pertaining to the caste status of her father and mother and could have thus obtained OBC Certificate based on her parentage also. The petitioner is not to blame for issuance of OBC Certificate on the status of her husband. According to the petitioner, Annexure P-11 was illegally cancelled and hence Annexure P-15, Cancellation Order is liable to be set aside.

(iii) Even Annexure P-18 OBC Certificate issued to the 3rd respondent will indicate that OBC Certificate can be issued on the strength of parentage as well as based on the status of husband of the person concerned.

(iv) The law relating to the subject (issuance of OBC Certificate) are incorporated in Schedule II of Notification No. 3/WD/95 dated 06.06.1995 and Notification No. 7/GOS-9(15)SWD dated 05.12.2003, if those notifications are read conjointly it will be seen that OBC Certificate can be issued not only on the basis of parentage but also on the basis of husband's caste.

40. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. We have gone through the rival pleadings and the various materials placed on record for the purpose and particularly Annexure P-15 impugned order. There is a clear finding in Annexure P-15 order passed by the 2nd respondent that in the matter of applying for issuance of OBC Certificate the petitioner never tried to mislead the authorities by misrepresenting the facts. There is equally clear finding that there was no evidence before the 2nd respondent to show that the petitioner tried to conceal any material fact before the issuing authority. Though not in so many words it is found that the petitioner submitted the application in a printed format prescribed by the authorities which contained columns for incorporating the identity of the petitioner's spouse also. The 2nd respondent has further found in Annexure P-15, that too taking into account precedents in the matter of issuing OBC certificate in general in the past that neither the applicant nor the issuing authority has ever examined the eligibility criteria of the applicant seriously. In this context there is an observation in Annexure P-15 that even the 3rd respondent who was one of the candidates in the selection to the post of ACF in which the petitioner became successful was ignorant of the relevant criteria to be satisfied in issuing the OBC Certificate. It is after making all these observations that the 2nd respondent in a rather appologic tenor cancelled Annexure P-11 saying that "all said and done, it is an established fact of law that the OBC Certificate are issued only on the basis of parentage and not on the basis of marriage." In the penultimate paragraph of Annexure P-15 the 2nd respondent refused to examine the merits of the various other pleas including the petitioner's plea that even on the basis of parentage she belongs to OBC and that on considerations of equity her employment should be protected making an observation that such issues are beyond the purview of the present proceedings and that it is open to the parties to raise such issues before the competent authorities.