Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 566 (HP)

Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2021-08-17

SATYEN VAIDYA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Satyen Vaidya, J. - By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: i) That rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-10) may be quashed and set-aside. ii) That respondent No.4 Selection Committee be directed to interview the petitioner and take further action to complete the selection process. iii) That provisional selection of private respondent No.6 may be quashed and set-aside. iv) That the petitioner be declared as selected candidate as total marks of petitioner is more than the grand total marks of respondent No.6 including marks of interview. v) That discrimination on the basis of place of residence with respect to IRDP/BPL be declared ultra vires to Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No.2 issued recruitment notice dated 3.3.2019 for the post of Constables. Applications were invited from eligible candidates in prescribed online format. The last date for submission of application was 30.4.2019. 3. The recruitment notice specifically prescribed that the candidate should be possessed of requisite certificates valid as on the date of submission of application form. It was further provided that all necessary and relevant documents (in original) copies of which were uploaded by the candidates while submitting online application should be produced alongwith a set of photocopies by the candidates before admission to the personality test. Failure to submit original documents or any documents not found in order, as per requirement, would result in immediate disqualification of the candidate. 4. The case of the petitioner is that in response to recruitment notice dated 3.3.2019, he applied under OBC category with sub-category of IRDP. His application was within time. As per specific averment of petitioner, he uploaded the copies of matriculation certificate, copy of 10+2 certificate and copy of OBC certificate alongwith application form. According to petitioner, he had submitted the BPL certificate dated 16.6.2017 issued by the Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. by uploading the same. Petitioner has placed on record a copy of said document as Annexure P-1. 5. It is also the case of petitioner that he qualified written test by securing 52 marks and also qualified physical test in which he was awarded two marks. Petitioner has placed on record a copy of said document as Annexure P-1. 5. It is also the case of petitioner that he qualified written test by securing 52 marks and also qualified physical test in which he was awarded two marks. Petitioner received call letter dated 21.10.2019 for appearance on 31.10.2019 at 7.00 a.m. at Police Line, Hamirpur for suitability-cum-personality test alongwith all the documents (in original) with one attested photocopy each, which were uploaded by the candidate while submitting online application form. 6. As contended by petitioner, he appeared for suitability-cum-personality test on 31.10.2019 and was asked to produce the valid BPL certificate. He alleges to have procured the requisite certificate on the same day and produced before the authorities concerned. The document so produced by the petitioner on the day of suitability-cum-personality test is Annexure P-2 with petition. 7. The grievance of petitioner is that the authorities refused to admit the certificate, provided by him, to be a valid certificate and consequently issued rejection slip rejecting his candidature on 31.10.2019. The rejection was on the ground that he could not produce the valid IRDP certificate for the relevant period. According to petitioner, his rejection is wrong and illegal. 8. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in their replies have specifically submitted that petitioner did not produce valid and relevant IRDP certificate pertaining to the year 2018-19 and, as such, his candidature was rightly rejected. It has also been stated that the certificate uploaded by petitioner alongwith his online application was not valid during the relevant period as the same was dated 16.6.2017. According to respondents No.1, 2 and 4, the said certificate was not fulfilling the requirements of recruitment notice, therefore, the rejection of the candidature of petitioner was justified. 9. Reply submitted by other respondents stated that petitioner belonged to BPL/IRDP category even on the date when he submitted his online application Evidently such statement has been made only on the basis that the family of petitioner was found to be eligible for BPL certificate in a survey conducted in 2004-2005. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that at the time of submission of online application, petitioner uploaded a document to support his claim under BPL/IRDP category. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that at the time of submission of online application, petitioner uploaded a document to support his claim under BPL/IRDP category. This document was issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh as identity card for Urban poor under the signatures of Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Nadaun. Though this certificate bore the date "16.6.2017" under the signatures of Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Nadaun, but the same pertained to the year 2004-2005 as suggested by the replies filed by respondents No. 3 and 5. Requirement of recruitment notice was that the certificate of category under which candidate was to apply should be valid on the date of submission of online application. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner produced another BPL certificate dated 31.10.2019 before the authorities at the time of appearance for suitability-cum-personality test. 12. The precise question that arises for determination is whether the document Annexure P-1 dated 16.6.2017 was valid compliance of the recruitment notice. It goes without saying that in present petition this Court has not to decide the general status of the petitioner as BPL/IRDP member, what is to be decided is whether the petitioner had complied with the requirement of recruitment notice or not? 13. The BPL certificate dated 31.10.2019 relied upon by the petitioner itself shows that the validity of such certificate is only six months. It being so, the onus lies on the petitioner to show that the BPL/IRDP certificate down-loaded by him at the time of submission of online application was valid on the said date. Firstly, the document down-loaded by the petitioner with his online application to prove his BPL status was not a BPL certificate and secondly, the same was issued on 16.6.2017 on the basis of the survey conducted in 2004/2005. It is worth noticing that in Annexure P-1, age of the petitioner is written as 14 years, which cannot be said to be petitioner's age in the year 2017 when this document was allegedly issued. In 2019, the petitioner was 20 years old, so by no stretch of imagination, he could be only 14 years in 2017. It is worth noticing that in Annexure P-1, age of the petitioner is written as 14 years, which cannot be said to be petitioner's age in the year 2017 when this document was allegedly issued. In 2019, the petitioner was 20 years old, so by no stretch of imagination, he could be only 14 years in 2017. On the basis of material on record, we have no hesitation to say that petitioner was not in possession of a valid BPL/IRDP certificate on the date of submission of his online application in response to the recruitment notice dated 16.6.2017. 14. It is no more res integra that non-submission of requisite certificate by a candidate in accordance with the requirement of advertisement/recruitment notice is sufficient ground to reject the candidature. Reference can be made to judgment dated 8.10.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4276 of 2020, titled Monika Koti vs. H.P.Public Service Commission, wherein identical proposition has been dealt with by placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85 and Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and another vs. H.L. Kaveri and others, (2020) 3 SCC 108 . Recently in Deepak Yadav and others vs. Union Public Service Commission and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the aforesaid legal position. 15. Petitioner in support of his case has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 126 of 2009 titled Anjana Kumari vs. Manorma Devi and others, decided on 09.03.2011, judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 55 of 2011, titled Nand Lal Bhardwaj vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 22.12.2015, judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 14531-32 of 1996 titled Seema Kumari Sharma vs. State of H.P. and another, judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2927 of 2019, titled Anjali vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 18.11.2019 and judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3370 of 2020, titled Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 22.2.2021. 16. With due deference to all these judgments, in our considered view, these do not help the cause of petitioner. 16. With due deference to all these judgments, in our considered view, these do not help the cause of petitioner. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 126 of 2009, is against the case of the petitioner. Considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seema Kumari Sharma's case, learned Single Judge held as under: "8. The Apex Court in this judgment has not laid down any hard and past preposition of law. In the case before the Apex Court, there were no private competing parties. Here the petitioner has been selected and is working against the post of Anganwari Worker and her rights will be directly affected if such document is relief upon. It was the duty of Manorma Devi, respondent No.1 to have placed the proper documents before the Selection Committee at the time of selection and if she failed to produce such documents at that stage, she cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae at a later stage." Judgment in LPA No. 55 of 2011 titled Nand Lal Bhardwaj's case, was altogether different preposition where IRDP certificate, on the basis of which petitioner therein had obtained employment, was discovered to be not genuine and the issue was whether the writ Court in holding the IRDP certificate to be false was within its competence without pleadings to that effect. As regards the reliance on Seema Kumari Sharma's case, placed on behalf of petitioner, as noticed above, learned Single Judge of this Court in Anjana Kumari's case had already observed that the judgment in said case did not lay down any hard and fast preposition of law. It was also noticed that there was no private competing parties in the case of Seema Kumari Sharma. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2927 of 2019, titled Anjali vs. State of H.P. and others. Perusal of this judgment reveals that the same is clearly distinguishable from the case in hand. In that case again there was no private competing parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2927 of 2019, titled Anjali vs. State of H.P. and others. Perusal of this judgment reveals that the same is clearly distinguishable from the case in hand. In that case again there was no private competing parties. The BPL certificate of the petitioner therein had expired only during the period when the date for submission of online application was not over and the petitioner therein had submitted his application for renewal of BPL certificate even prior to the expiry of the date for submission of online form. Lastly, another judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3370 of 2020, titled Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, has been pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner, however, the same also does not have application in the facts of the case. In that case, the issue was with respect to validity of Other Backward Classes certificate produced by petitioner therein before authorities. In that context, it was held that since petitioner undisputedly belonged to "Labana" community which was recognized as "Other Backward Classes" in the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, the status of petitioner therein would not change in absence of a certificate. 18. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.