Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 754 (JHR)

Raju Sharma v. Union Of India

2017-04-24

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. – Challenging the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2013 the petitioner has approached this Court. He is seeking a direction upon the respondents for his appointment to the post of Constable (GD) under OBC category. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that on account of a mistake committed in preparation of Central List of OBCs for the State of Jharkhand, whereunder the caste "Hazzam" which is also called "Nai" has been left out at Sl. no.82 in the said list, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment under OBC category. Referring to the decision in "Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar & Ors." AIR 1971 SC 2533 , the learned Senior counsel contends that it is not the name of a community which is decisive rather, it has to be found out whether a person belongs to the community to which he claims or not. 4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents opposing the writ petition submits that in none of the notifications issued by the Central Government "Hazzam" has been included in the list of OBCs. The petitioner''s candidature was considered under unreserved category and a review result was declared on 12.06.2014, in which the petitioner did not qualify under unreserved category. 5. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that generally challenge to a show-cause notice is not entertained unless, it is wholly illegal or without jurisdiction [refer, "Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana" (2006) 12 SCC 28 ]. By notice dated 22.04.2013, the petitioner was directed to present his case, how he comes under OBC category for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) and, why his candidature under OBC category be not rejected. The said notice was issued when it was found that "Hazzam", to which the petitioner claims he belongs to, is not included in the Central List of OBCs. The petitioner himself has produced a caste certificate which would disclose that he belongs to Hazzam caste. In his reply, the petitioner asserted that in the list appended to letter dated 17.11.2012 issued by the Government of Jharkhand at Sl. no.44 Nai (Hazzam) is included and therefore, he is entitled for reservation benefits as OBC candidate. 6. The advertisement published in Rojgar Career India on 03.12.2011 was issued for appointment under CRPF/CISF/BSF/SSB/ITBP and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. no.44 Nai (Hazzam) is included and therefore, he is entitled for reservation benefits as OBC candidate. 6. The advertisement published in Rojgar Career India on 03.12.2011 was issued for appointment under CRPF/CISF/BSF/SSB/ITBP and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. The advertisement prescribed that the candidates seeking reservation shall submit a certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format. The Central List of OBCs for the State of Jharkhand (vide Annexure-9), includes "Nai" at Sl. no.82. This community has been included in the List by notification no. 12015/2/2007-BCC dated 18.08.2010. This notification is not under challenge. As noticed above, the petitioner''s caste certificate also records that he is Hazzam by caste. Now, in the aforesaid facts, whether "Nai (Hazzam)" is the same caste as "Nai" or not, an enquiry in this respect is not contemplated by the respondents at the stage of recruitment. They are bound by the Central List of OBCs for the State of Jharkhand. The case referred by the learned Senior counsel arose out of an election petition during which the parties had led evidence. An enquiry on the above subject cannot be held in the present proceeding also [refer, "State of Maharastra v. Milind" (2001)1 SCC 4 ]. Reliance on the List of OBCs issued through letter dated 17.11.2012 by the State of Jharkhand in which at Sl. no.44 Nai (Hazzam) is included, would not be a ground for the respondents to embark upon an enquiry to find out whether "Nai" and "Nai (Hazzam)" both are the same caste or different. 7. In the aforesaid facts, challenge to the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2013 fails. Finding no ground to interfere with the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2013, the writ petition is dismissed.