Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 11 (MEG)

Kamesh Kumar Roy v. Union Of India

2016-08-11

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, J. The petitioner, who had been a candidate in the "CRPF Recruitment 2015 (North Eastern Zone) for 518 constable (Tech & Trades) vacancies" for the post of Tradesmen (Cook), has filed this writ petition stating the grievance that after he was admitted in the recruitment process and cleared the physical test, the respondent No. 5, the Presiding Officer, Recruitment Board at Group Centre (GC) Central Reserve Police Force, Khatkhati, Assam issued a rejection slip dated 23.01.2015 while alleging that the Domicile Certificate produced by him was not a valid one and he was not eligible to be considered as a candidate from the State of Meghalaya. 2. The petitioner has contended that the respondent authorities have proceeded to reject his candidature without following due process of law and without verifying the genuineness of the Domicile Certificate which was produced by him as supplied by the concerned authorities. The petitioner has further stated that he had made a representation against the rejection order so passed but, the same was also rejected in a cursory manner while reiterating that the certificate produced by him was not a valid one. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only 3 candidates from the State of Meghalaya against 49 vacancies have been selected by the respondents while disqualifying the other candidates on one ground or the other. In any case, it is submitted that the petitioner having produced a valid and genuine certificate, the respondents were wholly unjustified in rejecting his candidature. 3. In response to the notice issued in this petition, separate affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 6. On behalf of respondent No. 6 i.e., the State of Meghalaya, it is candidly admitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District that the Domicile Certificate referred by the petitioner is a genuine one. It is, inter alia, stated as under: "4. On behalf of respondent No. 6 i.e., the State of Meghalaya, it is candidly admitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District that the Domicile Certificate referred by the petitioner is a genuine one. It is, inter alia, stated as under: "4. That in reply to the statements made in Paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition humble Answering Respondent beg to state that the Domicile Certificate bearing No. P.15/ARMED/V/2014/426 Dated Shillong the 09th October, 2014 issued by the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District in respect of Shri Kamesh Kumar Roy, S/o Ram Palak Roy is a genuine one and the same has been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District." 4. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the contesting respondents (No. 1 to 5) that they have found different nature certificates issued by the authorities of different areas in the State of Meghalaya. To illustrate, the Domicile Certificate said to have been issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Garo Hills District, Tura has been placed on record and it is submitted that although such a certificate clearly confirms to all the requirements of law and extends reasonable satisfaction, the certificate produced by the petitioner were not so, and it was difficult to accept the same as a Domicile Certificate. 5. The contents of the certificate supplied to the petitioner and produced by him are as under: "CERTIFICATE FOR RECRUITMENT IN ARMED/PARA MILITARY/POLICE FORCES 1. Certified that Shri. Kamesh Kumar Roy son of Shri. Ram Palak Roy and Smti. Raj Pati Rai is residing at Locality Nongrimmaw, Village/Town Shillong, Post Office Laitumkhrah, Police Station Laitumkhrah, District East Khasi Hills, State Meghalaya, Pin No. 793011. 2. This certificate is issued for the sole purpose of recruitment in the Armed/Paramilitary/Police Forces. 3. This does not constitute a Permanent Resident Certificate for any other purpose." 6. It is, of course, seen that from the West Garo Hills District, a specific Domicile Certificate had been issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, certifying the person concerned to be a domicile of the State whereas the certificate issued to the petitioner had been framed differently and is couched in different expressions. It is, of course, seen that from the West Garo Hills District, a specific Domicile Certificate had been issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, certifying the person concerned to be a domicile of the State whereas the certificate issued to the petitioner had been framed differently and is couched in different expressions. It is now clarified in the affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District before this Court that the aforesaid is a genuine Domicile Certificate issued by their office. 7. In all fairness, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 has not attempted to take the issue any further and has frankly submitted that in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Meghalaya, the respondents may consider the candidature of the petitioner but, it is submitted that in the State of Meghalaya, similar certificates ought to be issued by all the concerned to avoid any doubt or ambiguity. The learned CGC cannot be said to be unjustified in these submissions, particularly on the desirability on the part of the Government of Meghalaya to ensure that the process of issuance of Domicile Certificate is uniform in nature and the contents of the certificate should also be specific so as to avoid any ambiguity. Such uniformity and clarity is moreover required when the matter relates to the candidature offered by the unemployed persons in the recruitment processes. 8. Without further comments, this Court would prefer leaving the matter for appropriate examination and steps by the Government of Meghalaya. 9. So far the present matter is concerned, for what has been observed herein above, it is clear that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that he did not produce a valid Domicile Certificate of the State of Meghalaya. The certificate produced by him is required to be taken as a valid Domicile Certificate for the purpose of the recruitment in question. As several vacancies are said to be available yet in relation to the post the petitioner has applied for, it is required of the concerned respondents to admit the petitioner to the further process of recruitment and complete the process in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 10. The petition stands disposed of with the observations and requirements foregoing. No costs.