Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 188 (GAU)

Mridul Kumar Nath v. Union Of India

2020-02-12

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Ms. P. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC for the respondent, the Union of India. 2. Following the issuance of Advertisement dated 12 th March, 2014, by the DIG (Adm.), Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad wherein applications were invited from willing and qualified candidates for recruitment to the posts of Head Constable (Ministerial) in CRPF, the petitioner also submitted his application in the prescribed format wherein he indicated that he belongs to General category. His application was dated 6.3.2014. After proper scrutinization it was provisionally accepted under the General category and he was allotted Roll No. 511000963 and directed to report at the CRPF Camp, 9 th Mile, Guwahati, on 05.06.2014 at 8.00 hrs. with all his original documents for the first phase of the recruitment process. As instructed, the petitioner appeared at the group centre and he was found fit under the General category to appear in the written examination on 03.08.2014. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and he was declared qualified to appear in the second phase of recruitment process. Accordingly, he appeared in the second phase of recruitment process on 15.09.2014 and he was declared qualified to face the oral interview on 20.09.2014. After the interview, on 22.09.2014 he was physically examined and was found over weight by 4 kgs but when he was called for medical examinations held on 16.12.2014 and 21.01.2015, he was declared fit by the Medical Board. After the interview and the medical examination were over, the files of all of the candidates alongwith that of the petitioner were sent to the Director General, CRPF. The final result of the recruitment of the Head Constable (Ministerial) was declared on 14.08.2015 but the name of the petitioner did not find place amongst the list of candidates selected. 3. The petitioners case is that though he belongs to OBC category and scored 171 marks, a person who belongs to the same category and scored only 167 marks was selected and appointed to the post of Head Constable. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to appoint him in place of the private respondent No. 7 who was the last OBC candidate appointed. 4. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to appoint him in place of the private respondent No. 7 who was the last OBC candidate appointed. 4. As per the terms and conditions given at paragaraph-9 of the advertisement, caste certificates issued by competent authorities should be submitted in the prescribed format given at Annexure-B and C of the same at the time of submission of the form but if any candidate fails to produce such certificate in original within such time, the candidature shall be rejected straightway. There is no argument on the fact that the petitioner did not submit his caste certificate at the time of submission of his application in the prescribed format and also at the time of scrutiny. Further, there is also no argument on the fact that the petitioner, while submitting his application in the prescribed format had indicated that he belongs to General category. The only contention of the petitioner is that while submitting his application some officials of the respondents had advised him to indicate in the application format that he belongs to General category and he may submit his OBC certificate later on if he wishes to do so. As stated above, as per the advertisement, all the credentials of the candidates including caste certificate were to be submitted at the time of submission of the application in the prescribed format. Since, the petitioner did not submit his certificate showing that he belongs to the OBC category and since he also indicated that he belongs to General category in his application form, he cannot now claim that he belongs to OBC category at least, in connection with the recruitment process already completed. The submission that on the advice of the officials of the respondent authority he had indicated his category as general and did not submit his OBC certificate at the time of submission of his application in my view does not help his case. 5. In view of the facts and reasons stated above, I do not find merit in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.