Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1473 (JHR)

Ranjeet Prabhakar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-08-26

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief’s: (a).For quashing final result of Jharkhand Forest Guard Competitive Examination-2014 (Main) published online on 24.05.2017 with respect to the district of Giridih. (b).For direction upon the respondent to consider the petitioner as a reserve candidate either under BC-II category or under BC-I category. (c).For direction upon the respondent to reserve at least one seat for petitioner during pendency of the instant writ application. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, is that an online advertisement, being Advertisement No. 3/2014, was published by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (in short 'JSSC') inviting online applications for selection to the post of Forest Guard in different districts of Jharkhand against the vacancies notified by the State Government, for which, online applications were to be submitted in between 5.11.2014 to 20.12.2014 district wise. 3. The said advertisement was published for fulfilling total 182 posts of Forest Guards so far Giridih district is concerned, out of which 91 posts were for unreserved category, 22 posts for Scheduled Tribe category, 24 posts for Scheduled Caste category, 20 posts for BC-II Category and 25 posts for BC-I Category. 4. The petitioner, who is alleged to have falling under BC-II category having requisite qualifications and also otherwise eligible for being selected submitted his online application for Giridih district. The petitioner since belongs to Sundi caste, which is under BC-II category as such in his application, the petitioner has mentioned his category as BC-II. Pursuant thereto, admit card was issued to the petitioner for appearing in the Preliminary Test scheduled to be held on 24.05.2015, in which, he was declared successful and hence was allowed to appear in the Mains Examination, for which also admit card was issued, in which, his category was mentioned as BC-II. In the Mains Examination also the petitioner was declared successful and accordingly he was directed to appear in the physical and medical examination, scheduled in between 07.12.2016 to 23.12.2016. Thereafter, a notice was published online on 18.01.2017 directing the successful candidates to appear for verification of certificates, which was scheduled in between 23.01.2017 to 27.01.2017. 5. In the Mains Examination also the petitioner was declared successful and accordingly he was directed to appear in the physical and medical examination, scheduled in between 07.12.2016 to 23.12.2016. Thereafter, a notice was published online on 18.01.2017 directing the successful candidates to appear for verification of certificates, which was scheduled in between 23.01.2017 to 27.01.2017. 5. The petitioner has applied under BC-II category but during the process of selection, the State Government vide resolution as contained in Memo No. 10760 dated 18.12.2015 has shifted the caste of the petitioner to BC-I Category from BC-II category. Hence, at the time of verification of the documents, the petitioner submitted caste certificate for BC-I category mentioning therein that earlier he was falling under BC-II category but presently after coming into force of said resolution he is now falling under BC-I category. But the authorities without taking into consideration this fact finally not recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment, hence the present writ petition. 6. The ground has been raised by the petitioner that since at the time of submission of application the petitioner was falling under BC-II category and if by virtue of a decision taken by the State Government by way of policy decision treating Sundi caste as BC-I category, on that ground, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be rejected since no fault lies on the part of the petitioner. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents- JSSC wherein inter alia ground has been taken that the petitioner's candidature has been considered as BC-II category by taking into consideration the declaration of the petitioner to be true and by going across the details furnished by him through online application but at the time of verification of the certificates, the petitioner has failed to produce caste certificate issued by the competent authority issued after 31.03.2014 but produced the caste certificate of BC I category, hence he was placed under unreserved category, in which, he was found to be below the last selected candidates, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim appointment by virtue of said recruitment process. 8. 8. Separate counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State Government sworn by Under Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasa & Administrative Reform, Government of Jharkhand wherein stand has been taken by taking aid of resolution dated 18.12.2015 by which a decision has been taken by the State Government by way of policy decision that the candidates belonging to Sundi caste would be treated to be BC-I category. The caste certificate issued on or after the date 18.12.2015 were to be issued in BC-I category for the person belonging to Sundi Caste but the caste certificate issued prior to 18.12.2015 of a candidate belonging to Sundi caste under BC II caste will be treated to be valid. 9. The contention has been raised by Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondents-JSSC that in online application, the details of the caste of the petitioner has been shown as BC II category but on the date of verification, it has been found that the caste certificate of BC II was issued by the Block Development Officer (B.D.O) while as per condition no. 7, the competent authority to issue the caste certificate is the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O) of the concerned Sub Division or the Deputy Commissioner (D.C) of the concerned district but the petitioner has produced the caste certificate issued by the B.D.O., therefore, the same has not been taken into consideration. 10. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on appreciating their rival submissions, it needs to refer herein that in pursuance to advertisement published being Advertisement No. 03/2014 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), online applications have been invited from one and the other candidates for consideration of their candidatures for appointment to the post of Forest Guard, Condition No. 7 of the advertisement pertains to reservation, under which, the benefit of reservation to one or the other category has been decided to be provided if the caste certificate would be issued by the D.C or the S.D.O. As per the other conditions of the advertisement, after publication of merit list, the original certificates would be scrutinized of the successful candidates and only after scrutinisation of the said certificates, the offer of appointment would be issued. 11. 11. The petitioner has been allowed to appear in the recruitment process and after being successful in preliminary and mains examination his name has also appeared in the merit list but at the time of verification of certificates, it has been found by the recruiting agency that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner of BC-II category was not issued by the competent authority and the caste certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of verification of certificates, it has been found by the recruiting agency that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner of BC-II category was not issued by the competent authority rather the caste certificate produced by the petitioner issued by the competent authority i.e. S.D.O was of BC-I category, hence the petitioner was treated under unreserved category. The said action of the respondent-authority is in question in this writ petition. 12. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the caste certificate showing the petitioner as BC-II category has not been issued by the competent authority, as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement as condition no. 7 (ii) rather the caste certificate has been issued in favour of petitioner by the B.D.O. Since the petitioner has made reference of the caste certificate of BC-II category in the online application but at the stage of verification of certificates, he has failed to produce the caste certificate of BC-II issued by the competent authority, as would appear from the stand taken by the State Government that the caste certificate which was issued prior to 18.12.2015 has been decided to be treated as valid and herein also the caste certificate issued under BC-II category is prior to 18.12.2015 but was not issued by the competent authority i.e. not by the S.D.O of the concerned Sub Division rather it was issued by the B.D.O of the concerned block, he was treated under unreserved category. 13. In the backdrop of these admitted factual aspect, if the petitioner has not been selected finally for appointment, it cannot be said to be improper. It is well settled position of law that merely on coming name in the merit list does not create any indefeasible right in favour of a candidate. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. It is well settled position of law that merely on coming name in the merit list does not create any indefeasible right in favour of a candidate. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 wherein by taking aid of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 holds that mere inclusion of the candidate’s name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected. The judgment rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532 wherein at paragraph 10 it has been laid down that merely inclusion of the candidate finds place in the select list it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. 14. Herein also, final appointment of the petitioner was subject to scrutiny of the certificates, as would appear from condition no. 3 stipulated in the advertisement and admittedly the caste certificate has been found to be not issued by the competent authority and on the date of scrutiny category of the petitioner changed to BC-I from BC-II category. Consideration of candidature entirely depends upon the details furnished by the petitioner in the application and if the decision would be taken even by way of policy decision, the details furnished on the date of submission of application would be treated and accordingly documents has to be considered. 15. As has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of mentioned herein above, merely appearing name in the merit list would not create any indefeasible right, hence, the petitioner since has not been able to satisfy the authority at the time of scrutiny of the certificates, so far it relates to caste certificate under BC-II category having not been issued by the competent authority, the decision taken by the recruiting agency by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner cannot be said to be without any reason. 16. 16. It is further settled position of law that writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to look into the legality and propriety of the decision making process and if it is wrong the interference can be shown under its power of judicial review but if there is no error in the decision making process the decision cannot be subjected to judicial review. Reference, in this regard, is made to the case rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in (1980) 3 SCC 97 , wherein at paragraph 10 the Hon'ble Court has opined that: 10.“The Court cannot strike down a Government order or a policy merely because there is a variation or contradiction. Life is sometimes contradiction and even consistency is not always a virtue. What is important is to know whether mala fides vitiates or irrational and extraneous factors fouls.” In this regard further in the case of Lord Justice Lawton in Laker Airways vs. Department of Trade (1977) 2 WLR 234 , while considering the parameters of judicial review in matters involving policy decision of the execution. It has been held therein that “in the United Kingdom affiliation policy is to be determined by the ministers within the legal framework set out by the Parliament. Judges have nothing to do it either policy-making or the carrying out the policy. Their function is to decide whether a minister has acted within the powers given to him by the statute or the common law, if it is declared by a Court after due process of law, to have acted outside his powers, he must sought doing he has done until such time as parliament gives him the powers he wants.” In the judgment rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi and Ors. reported in (2011) 13 SCC 383 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraph 17 and 18 that “the settled position of law is that the State Government must have liberty and freedom in framing policy.” 17. vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi and Ors. reported in (2011) 13 SCC 383 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraph 17 and 18 that “the settled position of law is that the State Government must have liberty and freedom in framing policy.” 17. In the case at hand also, the petitioner is questioning the decision making process and as has been described herein above, this Court is of the view that the recruiting agency has committed no error in decision making process by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 18. In view thereof, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.