Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 9 (MP)

Satyabhama Tiwari v. Commissioner, Rewa

2015-01-05

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Though the writ petition is admitted in terms of the order dated 24.1.2014, but because of the direction issued on 3.12.2014, writ petition is listed today for final disposal at motion stage and is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the order dated 30th September, 2008 passed in Appeal Case No. 480/Appeal/2007-08 by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and sending back the matter to the Collector, Rewa, with a direction to verify the caste certificate of the respondent No. 6 and to pass fresh order. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the caste certificate was not produced by the respondent No. 6 in valid form and, therefore, the additional marks were not to be assigned to her. The petitioner secured more meritorious marks than respondent No. 6 and was accordingly appointed. Against such an order of appointment appeal was preferred before the Collector by the respondent No. 6, which appeal was dismissed. Hence, a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa and the said appeal is allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the caste certificate should have been produced by the respondent No. 6 alongwith her application as the selection was started in the month of February, 2007. However, the relevant caste certificate was not produced by the respondent No. 6, which fact was specifically noted down by the committee and, therefore, she was not granted any additional marks for the said caste certificate. This aspect was rightly considered by the Collector in his order dated 10.12.2007 passed in the appeal of respondent No. 6, but ignoring these facts, relying on the caste certificate so issued in the year 1990 in respect to respondent No. 6, the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner, therefore, the said order is bad in law. This aspect was rightly considered by the Collector in his order dated 10.12.2007 passed in the appeal of respondent No. 6, but ignoring these facts, relying on the caste certificate so issued in the year 1990 in respect to respondent No. 6, the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner, therefore, the said order is bad in law. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact remains that the respondent No. 6 has obtained a caste certificate from the competent authority only on 9.10.2007, which was appended alongwith the memo of appeal preferred before the Collector and this shows that there was no valid caste certificate available with the respondent No. 6 on the date when she made the application for appointment, and as such she was not entitled to the benefit of additional marks. 4. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 that in fact a caste certificate was issued to the respondent No. 6 in the year 1990 by Tehsildar, which certificate was produced alongwith the application filed before the competent authority for selection on the post in question, but the benefit of that caste certificate was not extended to the respondent No. 6. As a result, she was shown at Sl. No. 2 whereas if such marks are added, the respondent No. 6 would be at Sl.No. 1 in the select List. These aspects were not considered by the Collector and erroneously the appeal of the respondent No. 6 was dismissed. Hence, the order was rightly passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in appeal preferred by the respondent No. 6, which order need no interference by this Court in the writ proceedings. 5. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed their return and have contended that the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 was required to be taken note of by the selection committee and since this fact was found by the Commissioner that such a certificate was available with the respondent No. 6, the matter was rightly remitted back to the competent authority to decide whether on the basis of such a caste certificate the respondent No. 6 was entitled to the additional marks or not. It is thus submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa need no interference by this Court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record, one thing is clear that the respondent No. 6 has obtained a caste certificate in the year 1990. However, a scheme was made by the State Government for issuance of caste certificate in terms of certain directives and under that scheme, persons who have obtained the caste certificate earlier from other authorities were also required to obtain the caste certificate from the competent authority. It is not clear whether respondent No. 6 has made any such application at any point of time and any caste certificate was issued to her by the competent authority under the said scheme. The certificate of caste issued by Tehsildar in favour of the respondent No. 6 in the year 1990 was not to be treated as certificate issued by the competent authority under the scheme made by the State Government and, therefore, if any such certificate was required to be obtained, the respondent No. 6 was required to approach the competent authority. However, earlier caste certificate was not to be annulled as a whole. It is not clear as to on what date the application was made by the respondent No. 6 for issuance of caste certificate which was subsequently issued to her. If that application was made well in time, but the certificate was issued belatedly to her, she would be entitled to benefit of provisional certificate and that benefit cannot be denied to her. All these aspects are required to be examined by the Collector. 7. Yet another aspect is with respect to marks obtained by the petitioner for the purpose of inclusion of her name in the list of persons living below the poverty line. There is no discussion in that respect in the order of the Collector or in the order of Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. Most probably this particular objection was not raised before those authorities or if raised the same was not pressed by the respondent No. 6. However, since the matter is being remitted back to the Collector for considering all the aforesaid aspects, it would be open to respondent No. 6 to raise such grounds before the competent authority by making representation in that respect. However, since the matter is being remitted back to the Collector for considering all the aforesaid aspects, it would be open to respondent No. 6 to raise such grounds before the competent authority by making representation in that respect. Such objections would be decided only after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. In view of the aforesaid, the order of Commissioner is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The matter is remitted back to the respondent Collector, Rewa to conduct enquiry as directed hereinabove and to pass fresh order. Needless to say, the order of the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa is to be treated to be quashed with respect to setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as the fresh order is required to be passed by the Collector in that respect. The petitioner be allowed to continue on the post till the orders are passed by the Collector in the appeal filed by the respondent No. 6. Let aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. 8. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 9. Certified copy as per rules.