Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1797 (JHR)

Anil Tanti v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-13

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to publish the result of the petitioners, as they have fully qualified in all the tests conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (for short "JSSC") for the post of Kakshpal (Warden) but only because they have not submitted their caste certificates in accordance with the format prescribed in the Advertisement, illegally and arbitrarily their candidatures were rejected. Further prayer has been made for providing opportunity to the petitioners for producing their caste certificates as well as residential certificates issued by S.D.O. in computerized format and for considering their representations and for passing necessary orders for their appointments. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to keep two posts vacant for the petitioners, since they have been declared successful in all the examinations but only due to non-production of caste certificates in proper format, their candidatures have been rejected by the respondent-authorities. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the JSSC vide its Advt. No. 12 of 2015, has advertised to fill-up the vacancies as existing in the Home Department under Prison with respect to Kakshpals (Wardens). The petitioners having the requisite qualifications for the said posts, have duly filled-up the application forms. In Clause-7 of the said Advertisement, it has been clearly mentioned that candidates who are claiming reservation, have to produce caste certificate and residential certificate issued by the competent authority, in accordance with the• Rules and Regulations of the State. Thereafter, after scrutinization of the forms submitted by the applicants, the petitioners along with the other applicants were allowed to appear in the preliminary examination, in which the petitioners were declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared in mains examination, in which also they were declared successful. Thereafter, a notification was published for those candidates who have cleared their preliminary as well as mains examination to appear for physical test along their testimonials. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared in mains examination, in which also they were declared successful. Thereafter, a notification was published for those candidates who have cleared their preliminary as well as mains examination to appear for physical test along their testimonials. In the said Notification, the JSSC has modified the advertisement to the extent that the candidature of only those candidates under the EBC category are taken into consideration, whose certificates were issued after 31.02.2015 and certificates issued prior to 31.02.2015 will not be considered and the candidatures of such candidates will be rejected. The date for scrutinization and physical test was fixed for 30.01.2017 in two shifts. The petitioners appeared before the Board constituted for scrutinization and produced their certificates. Petitioner in W.P. (S). No. 1630 of 2017 has produced his caste certificate issued on 02.12.2014 by S.D.O. and also caste certificate issued on 02.11.2015 by B.D.O. Petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1412 of 2017 has produced his caste certificate issued on 20.08.2008 by S.D.O., who is the competent authority for issuance of the aforesaid certificate, in which the petitioner has been declared as Economically Backward Caste. Inspite of production of the said certificates, the respondents have not considered the cases of the petitioners on the ground that they have not submitted their caste certificates in proper format, since the said certificate must have been issued after 31.03.2015 and as a result of which, in the final result, names of the petitioners figured in. the list of unsuccessful candidates. Hence, these writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for redressal of their grievances. 4. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in not considering the cases of the petitioners is highly arbitrary and against the settled propositions of law and is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submits that under no stretch of imagination it can be believed that only because a caste certificate was not in accordance with the format, the candidature of a candidate is being rejected, which is also highly arbitrary. The caste certificates produced by the petitioners are issued by the State Government, which was genuine but even thereafter, their candidatures have been rejected on the ground of non-production of caste certificates. The caste certificates produced by the petitioners are issued by the State Government, which was genuine but even thereafter, their candidatures have been rejected on the ground of non-production of caste certificates. Only because there is a subsequent change of policy decision by the State Government with respect to format of caste certificate, the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected, which is against the principle of natural justice. To buttress their arguments, learned counsels relies on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Kumar Gijoriya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 . 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that since the petitioners have not produced the caste certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claims for EBC, they were placed in unreserved category and since the petitioners have crossed the maximum age bar of 25 years as applicable for other unreserved candidates, their candidatures have been rejected and they have not been selected for the post of Kakshpal. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have not been selected only due to non-production of essential certificates and it is neither hyper technical nor against the law. Placing the petitioners in unreserved category in final result is quite legal as in absence of proper caste certificate, the concerned candidate is treated as unreserved category and his candidature is subject to fulfillment of the condition laid down for unreserved category. Learned counsel submits that Advertisement at Annexure-l to the writ petition is a short advertisement published in different daily newspapers for general information to aspiring candidates wherein, in para-12, it was clearly stated that before filling-up the application, candidates should read the complete information regarding examination by downloading the prospectus of the examination from the website www.jssc.in of the commission. It is further submitted that online application is accepted on the basis of self-declaration of candidates and the claim will have to be verified at the time of certificate verification. It is further submitted that online application is accepted on the basis of self-declaration of candidates and the claim will have to be verified at the time of certificate verification. Learned counsel submits that condition with respect to caste certificate was incorporated in the original prospectus of the advertisement (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) and the caste certificates submitted by the petitioners were not in consonance with the caste certificates required to be submitted as per the requirement of Appendix-3 of the Prospectus of the Examination. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the instant writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. In support of their arguments, learned counsels for the respondents rely on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Prakash Chand Meena and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484 ; Union of India and others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 ; and Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and others, reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 100 (SC). 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. The ground for rejection of the candidature of the petitioners is that they have not submitted their caste certificates in proper format. It is not a case that caste certificates of the petitioners have not been issued by the competent authority or the petitioners do not belong to the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioners who belong to EBC category on ground of non-submission of the certificates in proper format and not allowing them to submit their certificates after the cut-off date, amounts to violation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39(a) of the Constitution. The ground of rejection is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments passed in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, reported in (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 and in the case of Valsaamma Paul v. Cochin University, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 545 . The issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 and the question of law arose for kind consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was that "whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the OBC category or not?" Answering in affirmative, the Hon'ble Court was of the view that : – "14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Suppl (3) SCC 217, as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 . The learned Single Judge in Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC Online Del 281, also considered another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC Online Del 1092, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the SC and ST categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate. 18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in Pushpa v. Govt., 2009 SCC Online Del 281, is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. 18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in Pushpa v. Govt., 2009 SCC Online Del 281, is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 , wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged 'in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 . Therefore, the impugned judgment and order [Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Ram Kumar Gijroya, (2012) SCC Online Del 472] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) W.P. (C). No. 382 of 2009, is hereby restored." 7. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) W.P. (C). No. 382 of 2009, is hereby restored." 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category and as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunities. The object is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society and thus, not considering the cases of the petitioners is highly arbitrary and against the settled principle of law as also violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and the judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents particularly respondent No., 3 to accept the caste certificates of the petitioners and declare the results accordingly and if the petitioners are found well within the zone of consideration consider their candidatures by accepting their caste certificates and publish the results, as they have fully qualified in all the tests conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the post of Kakshpal (Warden). Needless to say that after submission of the caste certificates issued by the competent authority the results of the petitioners be published within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. Resultantly, the writs petitions stand allowed.