Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2164 (JHR)

Navin Kumar Pramanik v. Union of India

2017-12-15

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 39 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 4 to 12, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay. 3. In view of these facts, we, hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3201 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. LPA No. 214 of 2017 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order, dated 2nd February, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015, whereby, the petition preferred by this, appellant was dismissed. The caste, which this appellant belongs to and which is not declared as Other 'Backward Caste by the Central Government, has been maintained as it is and this appellant had not been treated as a member of Other Backward Castes by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the said writ petition and hence, the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 5. Factual Matrix Public advertisement was issued being, Advertisement No. 329 in the month of December, 2011, for the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Police Organizations and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifle etc. The written test was held on 22nd April, 2012 and after all type of tests were taken, select list was published on 12th June, 2014. The name of this appellant (original petitioner) found place in the said select list. This appellant has secured 38 marks in the selection process, but, as he was treated as ,unreserved category candidate by the respondent authority, for which cut-off mark Was 46 (because the last selected candidate has secured 46 marks), this appellant was not given employment order and hence, writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2017 and hence, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner). 6. 6. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant It has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that this appellant belongs to Other Backward Castes category and his caste certificate reveals that he is ‘HAZAM’ by caste, which is also known as Barber and ‘NAI’. These words are not unfamiliar in this country. The list of Other Backward Caste candidates has been published by the Central Government on 18th August, 2010, which is at Annexure 8 (series) to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and as per this list, in the State of Chhattisgarh both 'HAZAM’ as well as ‘NAL’ are Other Backward Castes, whereas, in the State of Jharkhand only “NAI” are other Backward Castes, whereas, in the State of Jharkhand only. “NAI” has been declared as Other Backward Caste. This appellant (original petitioner) is a ‘HAZAM’. His caste is ‘HAZAM’ and even though the word ‘NAI’ has been published in the list of Central Government as Other Backward Caste for the State of Jharkhand, this appellant should have been appointed because the word ‘HAZAM’ is synonymous to the word ‘NAI’. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and hence, judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2017, delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents: Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that list of Other Backward Castes has already been published, State-wise, by the Central Government on 18th August, 2010, which is at Annexure-8 (series) to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This appellant is claiming employment as an Other Backward Castes category candidate and his caste is ‘HAZAM’. This caste has not been declared as Other Backward Caste by the Central Government for the State of Jharkhand and hence, no benefit can be given to this appellant as an Other Backward Caste candidate for appointment on the post of Constable. This aspect of the matter was appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015 preferred by this appellant vide order dated 2nd February, 2017. This aspect of the matter was appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015 preferred by this appellant vide order dated 2nd February, 2017. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents that for the State of Chhattisgarh both 'HAZAM’ and ‘NAI’ have been declared as Other Backward Castes. Thus, this is a conscious decision taken by the Central Government based upon several facts prevailing in the different States of this country. This Court cannot add any caste as Other Backward Caste in the list in question while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2017 and, therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS 8. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent, Appeal mainly for the following’ facts and reasons: (i) This appellant has applied for the post of Constable as a reserved category candidate in pursuance of the public advertisement as stated hereinabove and he was selected. Looking to this caste certificate, it appears that he belongs to the caste ‘HAZAM’ and this caste is not declared as an Other Backward Caste for State of Jharkhand, looking to the list of castes, State-wise. published by the Central Government (Annexure No.8 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal) on 18th August. 2010. (ii) It has been argued out by counsel for the appellant that the word ‘NAI’ has been mentioned as Other Backward Caste for the State of Jharkhand and ‘HAZAM’ is equal to ‘NAT’. This attractive argument is not accepted by this Court because we are not here to declare other equivalent castes of a particular caste (which finds place in the list of Other Backward Castes published by the Central. Government) as Other Backward Castes. If this attractive argument is accepted, the number of castes declared by the Central Government will be double or triple because equivalent castes of the castes listed there will have to be added to the said list. Government) as Other Backward Castes. If this attractive argument is accepted, the number of castes declared by the Central Government will be double or triple because equivalent castes of the castes listed there will have to be added to the said list. If the list of 30 castes is published as Other Backward Castes at present, this actual and practical list would contain more than hundred castes. This is not permissible in the eye of law. This issue is not as simple as conversion of Centigrade to Fahrenheit or Kelvin because there is scientific formula for conversion of Centigrade to Fahrenheit and Kelvin (C= (F-32)* 5/9, C=K-273.15), but, neither there can be any mathematical formula for calculation for conversion of ‘NAT’ into ‘HAZAM’ nor we are in search of equivalent words for the castes in the list of Other Backward Castes published by the Central Government, ‘NAT’ means ‘NAT’, ‘HAZAM’ means ‘HAZAM’. We are neither the translator of the words 'NAI' or 'HAZAM and not we are translator of the word Barber, especially when we are exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Separation of power ought to be maintained by the Court and as per the theory propounded by jurist Montesquieu, the power of Central Government to declare any caste as an Other Backward Caste, for the State of Jharkhand, cannot be usurped by this Court even though other very close and equivalent castes exist in the State of Jharkhand. In the State of Chhattisgarh, 'NAI’ as well as ‘HAZAM’ have been declared as Other Back-ward Castes, whereas, for the State of Jharkhand only 'NAI’ has been declared as Other Backward Caste by the Central Government as per the list at Annexure 8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. It this Court makes an exercise to find out equivalent castes of the castes listed in that particular list, then there would be hundreds of equivalent or nearby equivalent castes. There will be no end to such exercise by this Court. We have no such expertise to knowledge. Neither can we add any caste as Other Backward Caste in the list published by the Central Government even if there exists any such nearly equivalent caste nor can we say that ‘NAI’ is equivalent to 'HAZAM’ and 'HAZAM’ is equivalent to BARBER. We have no such expertise to knowledge. Neither can we add any caste as Other Backward Caste in the list published by the Central Government even if there exists any such nearly equivalent caste nor can we say that ‘NAI’ is equivalent to 'HAZAM’ and 'HAZAM’ is equivalent to BARBER. It is a conscious decision taken by the Central Government that for the State of Jharkhand only 'NAI’ caste is Other Backward Caste, whereas for Chhattisgarh both 'NAI’ as well as 'HAZAM’ have been declared as Other Backward Caste, meaning thereby, Central Government was not in want of words. The Central Government knows in detail what is the difference between ‘NAI’ and 'HAZAM’. We have no reason to remind the Central Government that there is any difference between 'NAI' and ‘HAZAM’ because that is not the look out of this Court. We are not the maker of the law. Looking to the facts of the present case, we are just the interpreter of the law, when law is explicitly clear and unambiguous and unequivocal. There is no scope of further interpretation of the word ‘NAI’ and hence, there is no question of addition of caste ‘HAZAMA’ to the Other Backward casted list, for the State of Jharkhand, which is already published by the Central Government. 6. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciation by the learned single judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 2535 of 2015 vide Judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2017 and we are not inclined to take by the learned single judge. 10. There is no substance in this Letters patent Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.