Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 896 (MAD)

Jeetendra Kumar v. The Union of India & Others

2009-04-01

C.S.KARNAN, D.MURUGESAN

body2009
Judgment D. Murugesan, J. 1. Applications for appointment to the post of Constable (GD/Fire) were called for by the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (in short C.I.S.F.) in Circular dated 16. 2005. The petitioner was one of the applicant for selection to the said post. Insofar as the qualification, eligibility, fitness, etc. are concerned, there is no dispute and therefore, we are not referring those norms in this order. 2. The petitioner was selected as against the seats earmarked for the O.B.C. candidates and was found fit to be appointed to the said post. However, he was not issued with an appointment order by placing reliance on paragraph 3 of the circular prescribing the recruitment procedure for the post. The said paragraph 3 (i) reads as under:- "3. Recruitment Procedure. (i) Verification of eligibility standard viz. age, educational qualification, category (verification of caste certificate is must), physical measurement, eligibility as ex-serviceman, etc. as prescribed. It is also essential that if a candidate belongs to OBC category and submits his OBC certificate, this certificate should have been issued in the year of notification of vacancies otherwise, it must have attached the creamy layer certificate issued in the year of notification of vacancies." In terms of the aforesaid paragraph, the candidates selected for the post should produce a community certificate. The petitioner has not produced the O.B.C. certificate issued in the year of notification of vacancies, i.e., 2005. As the petitioner was not issued with an appointment order, he approached this Court for a direction to the respondent to consider and give him appointment as Constable (GD/Fire) in C.I.S.F. in the year 2005. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that inasmuch as the said clause (3) contemplates the production of a community certificate of the year of notification of vacancies, i.e. of the year 2005, since the petitioner produced such a community certificate of the year 2002, he was not given any appointment order. The learned counsel would also submit that the said clause has not been questioned by the petitioner and therefore, he is not entitled to the direction as prayed for in the writ petition. 5. We have carefully considered the entire materials placed before us, particularly the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel would also submit that the said clause has not been questioned by the petitioner and therefore, he is not entitled to the direction as prayed for in the writ petition. 5. We have carefully considered the entire materials placed before us, particularly the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Right to employment includes right to life and it is otherwise to be considered as a fundamental right subject to such restrictions imposed by the State or its instruments by way of regulations. A candidate is entitled to apply for the post based upon the certificates issued by a competent authority for selection. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the petitioner had produced a community certificate dated 25. 2002 at the time of his application and the selection was completed in the year 2005. Though he was selected, he was not issued with an appointment order only on the ground that in terms of clause 3(i), he failed to produce a community certificate issued in the year 2005. In our opinion, so long as the community certificate dated 25. 2002 is not cancelled or the genuineness of the same is not doubted by the respondent, insistence on obtaining a fresh community certificate and that too of the year of selection would be unreasonable. Of course, the petitioner has not questioned the said clause 3(i). Nevertheless, in our considered view, when it concerns with the infringement of the valuable right of the candidate who got selected and found fit to be appointed, he is denied the benefit of such selection solely on the ground of unreasonable restrictions imposed in the instructions. There is absolutely no meaning in asking a candidate to produce the community certificate of that year when he already possessed a community certificate, which in fact was produced at the time of application. 7. It is, one thing to say, the right of the respondent to entertain any doubt over the said certificate and consequently refuse to give any appointment and by referring the said certificate to the authorities concerned for verification. In the event of such procedure is not adopted, the said certificate should be taken into consideration for all practical purpose, particularly for the issue of an appointment order. In this case, the certificate dated 25. In the event of such procedure is not adopted, the said certificate should be taken into consideration for all practical purpose, particularly for the issue of an appointment order. In this case, the certificate dated 25. 2002 has not been either doubted or rejected by the respondent on any valid ground. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of the appointment without reference to clause 3(i) of the procedure for selection to the post of constables in C.I.S.F. 8. We are conscious of the fact that the said clause has not been questioned. But, in order to meet the ends of justice and in view of our finding that such a condition would be not only onerous but unreasonable, we are constrained to issue the present direction even in the absence of any challenge to the clause 3(i). 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of constable (GD/Fire) in C.I.S.F. on the basis of his selection and fitness and by taking into consideration the certificate dated 24. 2002 and without reference to clause 3(i) of the procedure for selection. Such an order shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or on production of the same by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.10192 of 2006 is closed.