Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2485 (JHR)

Surja Kujur v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-11-05

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.08.2013 pertaining to rejection of representations of the petitioner filed in deference to order passed in W.P.(S) No.3353 of 2013. Further, prayer has been made by the petitioner for consideration of his case afresh by treating him to be a S.T.(Scheduled Tribes) candidate for the post of Deputy Collector in pursuance to the 4th Limited Dy. Collector Recruitment Examination, 2013 on the ground that decision of the respondents in declaring him under General Category Candidates thereby debarring him from the consideration as Scheduled Tribes candidates as bad in law. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, though belonging to Schedule Tribe Category, applied for the post of Deputy Collector in pursuance to Advertisement No.9/2010 for the 4th Limited Dy. Collector Recruitment Examination, 2013. The result was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the petitioner has been shown to be unreserved category and declared unsuccessful. Being aggrieved by the action of the J.P.S.C., the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.3353 of 2013 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2013 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no.3 i.e. Controller of Examination, J.P.S.C. to verify the records of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within stipulated period. In reference to direction of this Court on the representation filed by petitioner, the order vide Annexure-6 dated 29.08.2013 has been passed by the respondents which is under challenge in the instant writ application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ application has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that on perusal of Annexure-3, it would be evident that the petitioner has secured marks 114.65 and has been declared as unsuccessful and the cut off marks under S.T Category was 113.70. Therefore, had petitioner been considered under S.T Category, then he would have been selected for the post in question. In this respect, the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Therefore, had petitioner been considered under S.T Category, then he would have been selected for the post in question. In this respect, the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Another as reported in , (2016) 4 SCC 754 wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court while considering the question of law has held that ''as to whether a candidate who appears in examination under the O.B.C category and submits certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the O.B.C. Category or not''. The Hon''ble Apex Court has rendered the judgment in the affirmative. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner ought to be considered in the light of the aforesaid judgment in the ratio of the Hon''ble Apex Court. Moreover, the petitioner''s residence is Jharkhand and belongs to S.T Category and has produced the caste certificate of the Block Development Officer, Latehar and the examination is limited examination confined to candidates not an open competition. Therefore, the respondents ought to have considered liberals without a hyper technical view. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer who is the authority to issue the certificate could not have been brushed aside by the respondents and Clause-13 of the advertisement relating to submission of caste certificate from concerned officer issued at the level of Sub Divisional Officer is directory and not mandatory in nature. Therefore, action of the respondents in rejecting representations of the petitioner in the impugned order, vide Annexure-6 suffers from non-application of mind being in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Therefore, action of the respondents in rejecting representations of the petitioner in the impugned order, vide Annexure-6 suffers from non-application of mind being in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Repelling the contentions made in the writ application, a counteraffidavit dated 05.12.2017 has been filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 wherein it has been submitted that in pursuance to requisition sent by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, the J.P.S.C started selection process of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Limited Examination for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector against the vacancies requisitioned by the State Government and accordingly, Advertisement No.09/10 was issued by which the application was invited from the eligible candidates for consideration of the candidature for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. In the Advertisement itself, the proforma of application forms was given which was submitted by the concerned candidates alongwith relevant documents, as per Annexure-A to the Counter-affidavit. It would be evident from perusal of Annexure-A that in proforma of the application form vide Clause-13, it has been mentioned that: Further, it has also been mentioned in proforma application of the Advertisement under heading Ghoshna Patra that: It has further been submitted that after creation of the State of Jharkhand, the J.P.S.C has no option but to treat the petitioner as general category candidates. Further, it has been submitted that since the petitioner has secured less marks than the last recommended candidate in general category, accordingly the petitioner was not declared successful in the written examination. 5. Supplementary counter-affidavit dated 12.02.2018 has been filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 annexing the letter of the Department of Personal Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department Government of Jharkhand dated 24.07.2013 which has clarified that for participation in Government services and Competitive Examination, the Caste Certificate issued not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer is only valid as per Annexure-C to the affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the JPSC apart from submissions made in the counter-affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit has submitted that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case in hand in view of paragraph nos.8 and 14 of the said judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the JPSC apart from submissions made in the counter-affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit has submitted that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case in hand in view of paragraph nos.8 and 14 of the said judgment. Learned counsel for the JPSC further submits that the selection process has already been completed in 2013, therefore, there is no scope for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the JPSC has also referred to decision rendered in L.P.A No.469 of 2015 in the case of Prem Chand Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others wherein the Division Bench of this Court by referring to other judgments as well as the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroyas case as reported in , (2016) 4 SCC 754 has been pleased to hold that the said case is distinguishable from the present case because in the instant case, the condition of the appointment was for submissions of residential as well as caste certificate issued by an officer not below the rank as has been enshrined in the advertisement. The Hon''ble Division Bench has been pleased to hold that the case as reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 is not applicable to the case where specific conditions in the advertisement would be there. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision rendered in L.P.A. No.469 of 2015. Learned counsel for the JPSC has also referred to decision of Pranjali Bhalchandra Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,wherein the Hon''ble Court has been pleased by referring extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction to alter the cut off date and disturbing the process by distinguishing the Ram Kumar Gijroya''s case. Learned counsel for the JPSC has also referred to decision reported in L.P.A No.361 of 2015 wherein the Hon''ble Court has been pleased to hold that if the candidate who has failed to submit requisite certificates within the cut-off-date would not be entitled to the claim of benefit of reservation. 7. Learned counsel for the JPSC has also referred to decision reported in L.P.A No.361 of 2015 wherein the Hon''ble Court has been pleased to hold that if the candidate who has failed to submit requisite certificates within the cut-off-date would not be entitled to the claim of benefit of reservation. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on bestowing my anxious consideration to the evidences on record, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration in view of the following facts and reasons stated hereinbelow:- (I) From perusal of the Advertisement No.09/2010 issued by the J.P.S.C, for Limited Competitive Examination, it would be quite evident under column 13 of the application form that to avail the benefit of reservation, the candidate must have to mention his caste and category and submit the caste and residential certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner has submitted the application alongwith caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Mahuadand since the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was not by the competent authority therefore, as per advertisement, he has been treated under unreserved category. Therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondents, vide Annexure-6 dated 29.08.2013 to the writ application. (II) Admittedly, the petitioner has secured less marks and was listed under general category and as such, the petitioner has been declared unsuccessful in the written test examination. (III) So far as ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court as reported in Ram Kumar Gijroyas case , (2016) 4 SCC 754 that Hon''ble Apex Court has permitted to settle cut-off-date and the said decision was rendered and there was no specific stipulation prior to declaration of results but the result was declared. In the instant case, as per Clause-13 of the advertisement, residential as well as caste certificate issued by an officer not below the Circle Officer was required to be attached to the application form. Therefore, the present case is different from the reported decision. (IV) The Hon''ble Division Bench in L.P.A No.469 of 2015 dated 21.06.2018 in Prem Chand Kumar Vs. Therefore, the present case is different from the reported decision. (IV) The Hon''ble Division Bench in L.P.A No.469 of 2015 dated 21.06.2018 in Prem Chand Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others by relying on various judgments including the judgment reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 has been pleased to hold that the said judgment is not applicable and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in L.P.A. No.469 of 2015. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the forgoing paragraphs, the impugned order vide Annexure-6 to the writ application does not warrant any interference by this Court, accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.