Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1956 (RAJ)

Khyali Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-29

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment G.K. Vyas, J.-By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the direction to the respondents to consider his candidature and appoint him on the post of Teacher (Gr. -III) in pursuance of advertisement Annexure-8 in OBC category with all consequential benefits including payment of salary, assignment of seniority with effect from the date persons with lesser merit than the petitioner were appointed in the OBC category. 2. Praying for the aforesaid relief , the petitioner has founded his claim on the averments that, his name was registered with the Employment Exchange, Alwar as he is bona fide resident of village Alanpur (Alwar). His caste is gurjar which is included in the Other Backward Classes category. Accordingly, he applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents as an OBC candidate. Alongwith his application form, he had duly enclosed the OBC certificate which he had obtained from the offence of Tehsildar on 08.04.1992. The petitioner is educationally eligible and trained for the post. The respondent District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Barmer issued advertisement No. 9/96 (Annexure-8) inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill in approximately 600 posts of Teacher (Grade-III). Reservation of vacancies as per rules was proved for various categories. Accordingly, 21% of the posts were reserved for the OBC category candidates. The petitioner presented his candidature for consideration in the OBC category. He was called for interview in the OBC category by the Establishment Committee on 12.04.1997. His percentage of marks, according to criteria laid down by the respondents, in the merit list was 70.03. The last candidate given appointment in the OBC category by the respondents secured 66.6% marks but the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that the certificate of OBC category which he had submitted alongwith his application is not in the prescribed format. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is educationally and otherwise also eligible, he secured 70.03% marks and the respondents have given appointment to persons with lesser merit than the petitioner which is ex facie arbitrary and illegal. The ground raised for denying him appointment does not hold good in law as the petitioner had enclosed the certificate of OBC category as issued by the competent authority. The ground raised for denying him appointment does not hold good in law as the petitioner had enclosed the certificate of OBC category as issued by the competent authority. It is further contended that on 15.04.1997, the petitioner again procured a fresh certificate from the competent authority and submitted that before the respondents on 19.04.1997 but the same was not taken into consideration. It is argued that the objection of the respondents is hyper-technical and when the petitioner stood in merit above the persons who have been accorded appointment, the respondents could not have denied the appointment to the petitioner. 4. I have carefully perused the material on record. With regard to the certificate enclosed by the petitioner alongwith his application form in respect of his being an OBC candidate the respondents raised the objection that it was not in the prescribed format as it did not disclose petitioners being in non-creamylayer OBC category as desired by the respondents. The certificate which was enclosed by the petitioner was issued to him in the year 1992 and it is in the format as was in vogue at that time according to rules. The format desired by the respondents appears to have been introduced later on by amendment or otherwise. Be that as it may, it is indisputable fact on record that the petitioner is an OBC candidate and in his category he has secured higher merit than the persons given appointment by the respondents in the OBC category. It may be pointed out that the certificate issued by the competent authority is a lawfully issued document and it cannot be thrown aside on technical grounds. Since, the formate desired by the respondents appears to have been introduced later on, at best, the respondents could have called upon the petitioner to further obtain and submit fresh certificate in desired format. In fact, the petitioner obtained a fresh certificate in the format as desired by the respondents and submitted that before the respondents but the respondents declined to take the same on record. This is arbitrary and illegal. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in the OBC category he has secured 70.03% marks and in that category the last person appointed has secured 67.6% marks. This is arbitrary and illegal. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in the OBC category he has secured 70.03% marks and in that category the last person appointed has secured 67.6% marks. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that since the petitioner did not present certificate declaring him non-creamylayer OBC candidate the petitioner was considered as a general category candidate because in the advertisement reservation was not extended to OBC category but was meant for non-creamylayer OBC candidates. A careful scrutiny of the advertisement issued by the respondents belies the contention of the respondents because 21 per cent of the vacancies are reserved for OBC candidates in the advertisement and all that has been remarked by way of foot-note in the relevant column is that only the certificate issued in prescribed proforma will be accepted. The petitioner had enclosed the certificate declaring him OBC candidate as issued by the competent authority under the law which is not denied by the respondents in the reply. Respondents have implicitly admitted in the reply the contention of the petitioner that person with lesser merit than the petitioner has been appointed. Besides, the petitioner was called to appear at the interview as an OBC category candidate. However, for denial of appointment the respondents have taken the plea that the petitioner did not submit the certificate of OBC in desired format and, therefore, he was treated as a general category candidate and he cannot claim parity with the candidates falling in the OBC category. Strangely enough, the respondents have not denied that the petitioner is an OBC category candidate. Despite that the respondents denied him the right to appointment on hyper-technical objection treating him a general category candidate which is violation of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Division Bench of this Court, in similar facts and circumstances, in Shaitan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2003 (4) WLC (Raj) 317, while allowing the special appeal, observed as follows: - "We are of the considered opinion that the majority of the candidates at the grass root level would not have known of this difference in creamy or non-creamylayer. They are not made known to this fine distinction. They are not made known to this fine distinction. Only on this ground as argued by learned Counsel for the respondents and the writ petition dismissed by learned Single Judge relief is denied to appellant, it will be travesty of the justice. Courts are not sitting here to do injustice to litigants or to deny their just and reasonable claim on the technical ground." 7. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. Respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher (Grade-III) with all consequential benefits with effect from the date such appointment has been given to persons with lesser merit than the petitioner in the OBC category. 8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.