Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 528 (PAT)

Chanda Kumari v. State of Bihar

2022-06-28

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2022
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is from Scheduled Caste category. Advertisement was issued on 20.06.2010 for appointment of primary teachers. The selection process under the said advertisement underwent a litigation which ultimately landed at the Apex Court. The Apex Court was shown a list of all successful candidates for appointment and the petitioner’s claim was shown in general category whereas she belonged to reserved category. Upon informing the Apex Court about such discrepancy the entire list was rejected by the Apex Court vide its judgment in 2011 and is directed to prepare the list afresh. 3. The petitioner submits that name was not included in the Scheduled Caste category in spite of her submitting certificate of belonging to Scheduled Caste category issued by the Block Development Officer, Araria. Her certificate was not considered on the ground that the Scheduled Caste certificate should be issued by the Sub Divisional Officer and not the Block Development Officer, rejecting her caste certificate she was placed in the general category and as candidates from general category had been appointed only up to cut-off session 1984-1986 the petitioner was denied appointment resulting in the present petition being filed by her before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s status in the Scheduled Caste category can not be denied and merely because the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer under his own signature instead of Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner could not have been denied appointment from Scheduled Caste category. More so, as similarly placed persons from Scheduled Caste category of the sessions 1990-1992 had been offered appointment and were working. 5. The counsel appearing for the Commission submits that it was a condition laid down in the advertisement initially that the applicants must submit a certificate signed by the Sub Divisional Officer and therefore the petitioner was treated as a general category candidate. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. Status of an employee would not change merely because an officer of the Government has issued a certificate of the level of Block Development Officer instead of the level of Sub Divisional Officer. Service Rules do not provide that a certificate must be issued only by Sub Divisional Officer. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. Status of an employee would not change merely because an officer of the Government has issued a certificate of the level of Block Development Officer instead of the level of Sub Divisional Officer. Service Rules do not provide that a certificate must be issued only by Sub Divisional Officer. In the advertisement the condition of only including caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer does not appear to be in consonance with the provisions of law. However, merely because a caste certificate has been issued by the Block Development Officer, the category of the petitioner could not have been changed to general category. It is not a case where the caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer is doubted nor it is a case where the petitioner could not have been asked to produce another certificate by the Sub Divisional Officer. A valuable right of consideration for appointment and livelihood has been taken-away merely because of a technical objection being raised by the examining body who are only required to make recommendations to the State Government. It is also not case where the State Government has denied her appointment. Had the examining body sent her name in the recommended list, the petitioner could have satisfied the appointing authority about her caste certificate. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the Case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE, reported in 2004(4) CTC 796 , wherein the Apex Court was seized with the same issue as to whether a certificate not duly attested by the concerned attesting person, can be ignored and the status of an employee can be changed by the examining body/appointing authority. 8. Keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court and considering the fact that the petitioner has a certificate duly issued by the responsible officer of the Government, and it is not possible for an employee to specifically demand that a certificate should be issued by a particular officer, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. The action of the respondents in not including the candidature of the petitioner in the merit list for appointment as primary teacher in Scheduled Castes category is held to be bad in law. 10. 9. The action of the respondents in not including the candidature of the petitioner in the merit list for appointment as primary teacher in Scheduled Castes category is held to be bad in law. 10. The respondents are now directed to consider the petitioner’s candidature as a Scheduled Caste category candidate against the sessions 1990-1992 and offer her appointment if she is otherwise found to be eligible. The age criteria would of course not come-up in her way for appointment as the matter was pending before this Court since long. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The compliance shall be made within a period of three months henceforth, failing which the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceeding without further reference to the Bench.