Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 454 (MP)

Tripti Choudhary v. State Of M. P.

2019-06-27

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER : Shri T. C. Singhal, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. N. Seth, Government Advocate for respondents/State. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :— “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to conduct petitioner's physical test and to consider her case like all other candidates without prejudice. Any other relief in the circumstances may kindly be granted.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued in the year 2017 for recruitment to the post of Subedar and Sub Inspector. The petitioner also applied for the same and she cleared the written examination and thereafter she was called for physical test, which was to be conducted on 3-2-2018. On 3-2-2018 the original documents of the petitioner were verified. The petitioner apart from the other documents also provided the permission granted by the Forest Department to appear in the recruitment process, as the petitioner was serving on the post of Forest Guard in the Forest Department. The petitioner had also produced the domicile certificate issued in the name of her father and the name of the petitioner was also mentioned in the said domicile certificate being minor daughter, however, respondents have refused to accept the domicile certificate of her father and, therefore, she was restrained from appearing in the physical test. The petitioner immediately made a representation pointing out that she is working on the post of Forest Guard w.e.f. 2013 and, therefore, the domicile certificate of her father produced by her should be accepted. As no heed was paid to her submissions, therefore, the present petition has been filed. 3. Challenging the action of the respondents in refusing to accept the domicile certificate of her father, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that although as per the advertisement the successful candidate was required to submit his/her domicile certificate, but the petitioner had submitted the domicile certificate of her father in which the name of the petitioner was also mentioned being minor daughter and on the basis of the same domicile certificate, she got appointed on the post of Forest Guard in the Forest Department and there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner. 4. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that according to the petitioner herself, it was mandatory for the candidate to produce the domicile certificate. The domicile certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner was only to the effect that the father of the petitioner is the resident of State of M.P. and the name of the petitioner was merely mentioned being the minor-daughter and, therefore, in absence of any separate domicile certificate, the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The dispute in the present case lies in a very narrow compass. It is undisputed that the petitioner had applied for recruitment to the post of Subedar/Sub Inspector and she was declared successful in the written examination. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was working on the post of Forest Guard in the Forest Department and the petitioner had appeared in the recruitment process after obtaining due permission from the Forest Department. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was working on the post of Forest Guard in the Forest Department and the petitioner had appeared in the recruitment process after obtaining due permission from the Forest Department. Clause 1.9.4 (11) of the Rules made for Recruitment Selection Examination 2017 for the post of Subedar and Sub Inspector cadre reads as under :— ^^1-9-4 izek.k i= ,oa nLrkost MkD;wesaV ewyr% izLrqr djuk %& vkosnd vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= ds lkFk okafNr nLrkost layXu djsaxs] f}rh; pj.k esa iqfyl foHkkx }kjk fd;s tkus okys izek.k i=ks ,oa nLrkostks ds lR;kiu ds le; fuEufyf[kr izek.k i= ,oa nLrkost MkD;wesaV ewyr% izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk%& ¼1½ tUe frfFk ds izek.k ds :i esa tUe izek.k i= vFkok gkbZ Ldwy ;k b.VjehfM;sV 10$2 dh vad lwph ftles tUe frfFk fy[kh gksA ¼2½ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds izek.k i= fMxzh ;k lfVZfQdsVA ¼3½ vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuwlwfpr tutkfr ,oa vU; fiNM+k oxZ xSj Øhehys;j ds lHkh mEehnokj 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i es l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkfr izek.k i=A izek.k i= tkjh djus okys vf/kdkjh dk uke] inuke] dk;kZy; bR;kfn blesa lqLi"V gksuk pkfg;sA izek.k&i= gsrq fu/kkZfjr izi= bl foKkiu ds lkFk Hkh izdkf'kr fd;s tk jgs gSA ¼4½ HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds ekeys esa ^lsuk^ dh lsok dk izek.k i=A ¼5½ iqfyl dfeZ;ksa ds izdj.kksa esa bdkbZ izeq[k }kjk tkjh 6 o"kZ dh lsokdky iw.kZ djus ,oa lEiw.kZ lsokdky ds nkSjku dksbZ cM+h ltk u gksus laca/kh izek.k i=A ¼6½ iwoZ ls fu;ksftr mEehnokj ds fy;s fu;kstd dk vukifRr izek.k i=A ¼7½ ifjR;Drk efgyk ds fy;s ykxw mPpre vk;q lhek dh NwV izkIr djus gsrq efgyk mEehnokjksa dks ifjR;Drk gksus ds izek.k ds :i esa jkTkLo vf/kdkjh tks rglhynkj ls uhps ds Lrj dk ugha gksxk] ,d izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxk fd fookg ds ckn efgyk mEehnokj dks mlds ifr us fof/kor rykd fn;s fcuk NksM+ fn;k gS rFkk mDr ifr ls efgyk mEehnokj dks dksbZ xqtkjk HkRrk ugh izkIRk gksrk gSA ¼8½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr rFkk fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k foHkkx dh vUrZtkrh; fookg izksRlkgu ;kstuk ds varxZr iq:Ld`r fdlh nEifŸk esa ls mPp tkfr ds ifr@iRuh mEehnokj dks vk;q lhek esa NwV ds fy;s l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s iq:Ldkj LkEca/kh izek.k i=A ¼9½ ^^foØe iq:Ldkj^^ izkIr mEehnokj dks mPprj vk;q lhek esa NwV ^^foØe iqjLdkj^^ gsrq iq:Ldkj lEca/kh izek.k i=A ¼10½ fookfgr mEehnokj dks muds cPpksa dk tUe izek.k i=A ¼11½ vkjf{kr oxZ ds mEehnokjksa gsrq e/; izns'k dk ewy fuoklh izek.k i=A uksV%& ¼1½ lR;kiu ds le; leLr izek.k i=ksa ,oa nLrkostksa dks ewyr% izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gSA leLr izek.k i=ksa ,oa nLrkostksa dh ,d izekf.kr izfrfyfi p;u lfefr ds le{k tek djuk gksxk vr% f}rh; pj.k dh ijh{kk esa mEehnokj izekf.kr izfrfyfi;ksa dk ,d lSV vius lkFk ysdj mifLFkr gksaxsA v/;k;&3 esa of.kZr fofHkUu izk:iksa ds vfrfjDr Hkh ;fn dksbZ lacf/kr izk:i 'ks"k jg tkrk gS rks og 'kklu ds }kjk tkjh fd, izk:i ds vuqlkj gksxkA ¼2½ ;fn ewy izek.k i=ksa ds ijh{k.k esa ik;k tkrk gS fd mEehnokj }kjk vkWu ykbu vkosnu Hkjrs le; dksbZ vLkR; tkudkjh izfo"V dh xbZ Fkh vFkok dksbZ rF;kRed tkudkjh NqikbZ xbZ Fkh rks mldh mEehnokjh mlh pj.k ij lekIr dj nh tkosxh rFkk mls vxys pj.k esa Hkkx ysus rFkk fdlh in ij p;u dh ik=rk ugha jgsxhA 7. Thus, it is clear that for claiming reservation it was necessary for the candidate to produce the original domicile certificate. Undisputedly, the petitioner had not produced her original domicile certificate, but she has produced the domicile certificate of her father, which reads as under :— dk;kZy; rglhynkj] rglhy 'kkBhjk ftyk v'kksduxj ¼e-iz-½ izdj.k Øekad 2771@ch&121@11&12 fnukad 9-7-2012 LFkkuh; fuokl izek.k&i= izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh@Jhefr@dq-feJhyky pkS/kjh firk@ifr Jh eksguyky pkS/kjh fuoklh xzke&lsth rglhy 'kkMkSjk ftyk v'kksduxj e/;izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk e/;izns'k ds LFkkuh; fuoklh ds fy;s izHkko'khy Kki fnukad 28&10&2010 fu/kkZfjr ekin.M dh dfM.dk Øekad ¼1½¼2½ dh iwfrZ djus ds QyLo:i e/;izns'k ds LFkkuh; fuoklh gSA 2- izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd e/;izns'k 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds Kki Øekad lh&3@22@2010@3@,d fnukad 28&10&2010 ds v/khu vkosnd }kjk fn;s forj.k vuqlkj vkosnd dh ifRu@vo;Ld cPps ftudk fooj.k uhps of.kZr gS] e/;izns'k ds LFkkuh; fuoklh gSA ¼1½ vkosnd dh ifRu dk uke Jhefr chuk ckbZ vk;q 40 o"kZ gSA ¼2½ vkosnd ds vo;Ld iq=@iq=h ¼1½ uke dqŒy{eh iq=h] vk;q 12 o"kZ ¼4½ uke dq- gseyrk iq=h vk;q 10 o"kZ Vhi%& ;g izek.k&i= tkfr fu/kkZj.k ds fy,s tkjh fd;s tkus okys izek.ki= dh tkap ls lk{; gsrq fopkjkFkZ xkzg; ugha gksxkA ¼vkosnd }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk&i= ds vk/kkj ij tkjh½ 8. As per clause 2 of the domicile certificate, the details of the wife as well s minor children were given and since the petitioner was minor on 97/2012, i.e. on the date of issuance of domicile certificate in favour of her father, therefore, the same cannot be treated as the domicile certificate of the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the domicile certificate filed by the petitioner, she was aged about 16 years in the year 2012. Thus, it is clear that she attained majority in the year 2014, however, another Circular No. C37201331 dated 29-6-2013 was issued by the State Government. 9. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the domicile certificate filed by the petitioner, she was aged about 16 years in the year 2012. Thus, it is clear that she attained majority in the year 2014, however, another Circular No. C37201331 dated 29-6-2013 was issued by the State Government. Clause 5.2 and 5.3 thereof are relevant, which read as under :— 5-2 e/; izns'k ds LFkkbZ fuoklh dh iRuh ,oa mlds vo;Ld iq=&iq=h ¼ifr ds thfor us gksus@rykd gks tkus ij iRuh dks LFkkuh; fuoklh izek.k&i= tkjh gksus dh fLFkfr esa muds vo;Ld iq=&iq=h½ Lor% gh e/;izns'k ds LFkkuh; fuoklh gksaxsA e/; izns'k ds LFkkuh; fuoklh dh iRuh ,oa vo;Ld cPpksa ds fy;s i`Fkd ls LFkkuh; fuoklh izek.k&i= dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA 5-3 e/;izns’k ds LFkkbZ fuoklh O;fDRk¼ekrk&firk½ ds iq=&iq=h ds o;Ld gksus ij muds ekrk@firk ds LFkkuh; fuoklh izek.k i= dh ewy izfr ls lR;izfr dk lR;kiu dj ,sls iq=@iq=h ds o;Ld gksus ij muds i{k esa e/; izns'k dk LFkkuh; fuoklh izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k tk ldsxkA 10. Thus, it is submitted that after attaining majority a person is required to obtain the domicile certificate in his/her own name and the domicile certificate issued during her minority would no more be in force. Under these circumstances, in absence of the domicile certificate in favour of the petitioner, the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 11. For claiming reservation against reserved category, production of domicile certificate of the candidate was mandatory. Since the petitioner has failed to produce the original domicile certificate as it was required in the light of circular dated 29/6/2013, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-production of domicile certificate. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not filed her domicile certificate in this petition also, therefore, it is clear that even today also the petitioner is not having any domicile certificate in her favour. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not filed her domicile certificate in this petition also, therefore, it is clear that even today also the petitioner is not having any domicile certificate in her favour. So far as the contentions made by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is serving in the Forest Department, therefore, it should be presumed that she is the permanent resident of State of M.P. is concerned, in absence of any power to the respondents to relax the condition of production of domicile certificate, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.