Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 57 (ORI)

Subhasmita Kar v. Union of India

2020-02-20

BISWANATH RATH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This writ petition involves quashing of memorandum dated 07.11.2014 of the opposite party No. 2 vide Annexure-8 and issuing further direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner in terms of the selection made vide Annexure-7 pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3. 2. Short background involving the case is that following the advertisement under Annexure-3 through employment news, petitioner became a candidate for recruitment for the post of constable in the CAPFs. As a consequence of production of relevant documents through appropriate application, ultimately vide Annexure-7 the opposite parties prepared a chart involving Recruitment of Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, 2013 including the list of female candidates recommended for appointment in Roll Number order. Sri Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the document at Annexure-7, at column "Record" SI. No. 1822, Roll No. 460450, 1849 contended that petitioner name already finds place therein in the list of Female Candidates recommended. It is thus referring to the document at Annexure-8, a submission is made by Sri Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner that for the name of the petitioner already recommended, there was no question in issuing such memorandum. Further for the clear statement involving writ petition, Sri Lenka, learned counsel also submitted that for there being already submission of a domicile certificate by the petitioner as a candidate in the recruitment process, there is no occasion on the part of the opposite parties to issue such memorandum thereby cancelling the recommendation in favour of the petitioner. It is for the above, Sri Lenka learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petition should succeed with interference of this Court in the memorandum at Annexure-8 and prayed that a direction should also be issued to the appointing authority to forthwith appointing the petitioner. 3. It is for the above, Sri Lenka learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petition should succeed with interference of this Court in the memorandum at Annexure-8 and prayed that a direction should also be issued to the appointing authority to forthwith appointing the petitioner. 3. To the contrary, Sri Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite parties taking plea of the opposite parties, more particularly, referring to the document at Annexure-R-2 appearing at running page 33 of the brief taking this Court to the mentioning therein contended that at the column "Domicile Certificate", there is clear observation therein marking that "not produced" and the comment since bears signature of the petitioner herself Sri Pradhan, learned counsel contended that petitioner knowing that she did not produce the domicile certificate and after knowing such deficiency only, she put her signature in the format vide Annexure-R-2. It is in this view of the matter, learned counsel opposed the submission as well as the claim of the petitioner and thus requests this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and the pleading of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has a clear pleading to have produced the domicile certificate along with necessary application available with her at the relevant point of time being granted by the competent authority. Further/from the list of recommendation, which must have been prepared after all verification are over, this Court again from Annexure-7 finds the petitioner since was found to be qualified, has already been recommended for appointment as a female candidate as indicated therein. It is at this stage of the matter, taking into consideration the submission of Sri Pradhan and action relating to document at Annexure-R-2 at page 44 of the brief, this Court further reading of the said document finds against the column "State Code matches with the State of posting" in column Domicile certificate, there is remark of "yes" by the competent authority. Further, for the entry made in the last column against Domicile Certificate at the top, this Court again finds the opposite parties have the clear remark "Correct State Code". It is in this view of the matter, this Court finds that not only the petitioner had produced the Domicile Certificate but there has also been verification of such certificate at the relevant point of time. It is in this view of the matter, this Court finds that not only the petitioner had produced the Domicile Certificate but there has also been verification of such certificate at the relevant point of time. It is not known under what circumstances, the opposite parties entered the remark "Not produced". From the other disclosures therein, this Court finds the remark "Not produced" may be a subsequent interpolation keeping in view the other candidates appearing therein. It is in this view of the matter, this Court finds from the disclosures, therein at Annexure-8 with regard to non submission of domicile certificate by the petitioner becomes bad. As a consequence, this Court interferes in the order at Annexure-8 and sets aside the same. 5. For the setting aside the order at Annexure-8, this Court directs the opposite party No. 1 to allow the petitioner to join forthwith in terms of the recommendation of the competent authority vide Annexure-7. The petitioner since has been prevented for no fault of her, she will also be entitled to all arrear wages along with interest @ Rs. 6% per annum all through. The appointment of the petitioner shall be done within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. The calculation with regard to arrear, entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month and payment, if any, shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a further period of 15 days thereafter. 6. In result, the writ petition succeeds. No order as to cost.