Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 941 (RAJ)

Pradeep Kumar Sen v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-22

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against non-inclusion of their names in the provisional merit list issued by the respondents for appointment on the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade pursuant to Advertisement dated 17.06.2021. 2. It is inter-alia submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were in possession of their caste certificates being Other Backward Class ('OBC') and Scheduled Tribe ('ST') respectively issued for applying for appointment to the post under the Government of India, which were produced by them at the time of document verification. Besides the above, petitioner-Pradeep Kumar Sen produced certificate dated 25.10.2021 issued in relation to his being OBC in the State list also, however, their names did not appear in the provisional merit list despite having marks higher than the cutoff meant for their category. 3. Response to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter-alia indicating that the petitioners had not produced the certificate issued before the cutoff date in terms of Clause 9.2 of the advertisement, which was 23.07.2021 and therefore, the certificate produced by petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Sen dated 25.10.2021 could not be taken into consideration. Further submissions were made that the certificates meant for applying for appointment to the post under the Government of India, as produced by the petitioners, could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of appointment under the State Government and on that count, the candidature of the petitioners under their claimed categories, has been rightly denied. 4. Submissions were made that the certificate of the Central Government relied on by the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen was dated 11.01.2019 and the same even otherwise for his claim as belonging to NCL category was of no use and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any consideration. 5. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the certificate issued for appointment to post under Government of India can very well be used for State Government services, inasmuch as the caste of petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen, is OBC in both the lists i.e. in Central and State and as such, the denial by the respondents is not justified. It was claimed that the petitioner had produced an affidavit dated 08.10.2021 during the course of document verification, filed as Annex. It was claimed that the petitioner had produced an affidavit dated 08.10.2021 during the course of document verification, filed as Annex. 13, to indicate that he continues to be under the NCL category since the year 2019 and therefore, in terms of Circular dated 09.09.2015, the candidature of the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the document (Annex. 13) sought to be relied on by the petitioner is a made up document, which was not produced during the document verification. Submissions have also been made that there is no reference of said document in the petition as filed, and only by way of an additional affidavit, the document has been produced. Submissions have also been made that once the certificate dated 11.01.2019 itself cannot be taken into consideration, filing of affidavit is of no use and therefore, the petition filed by petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen deserves to be rejected. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors.Special Appeal No. 156 of 2017 decided on 04.05.2017 by Full Bench of Allahabad High Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The petitioners have produced the certificates, which are titled as 'Form of Certificate to be produced by Other Backward Classes applying for appointment to posts under the Government of India' and 'Scheduled Tribe Central Certificate', respectively. 10. As to whether the said certificates can be used for State services, the issue has been considered by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra), wherein the Court answered the issue referred to it, whether there exists any irreconcilable difference or repugnancy between the norms fixed by the Union and State Governments with regard to certification of creamy layer? If not, its effect. Which has been answered as under: "Insofar as Question No. 3 is concerned, we hold that although there is no repugnancy in the norms fixed by the Union and State Government, the same would have no favourable impact upon the eligibility of a candidate unless he also furnishes a certificate evidencing him as belonging to the OBC category as recognised and identified by the State." 11. The Full Bench, came to the above conclusion, based on the fact that list of castes under the OBC in Central and the State list, are different and therefore, a specific State certificate in this regard has to be produced and merely because a caste is included in both the lists, cannot be a reason enough for using the certificate meant for Central services for the State services. Besides the above, the Circular dated 09.09.2015 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner filed as Annex. 1 with the writ petition also, inter-alia prescribes under Clause (c) various forms and under (iv) indicates the form for appointment under the Central Government and therefore, once a specific form for specific purpose is provided, the same cannot be used inter-changeable. 12. In view of above fact situation, insofar as the case of petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen is concerned, as the certificate dated 25.10.2021 produced by him is issued after the cutoff date and the certificate dated 11.01.2019 besides being well before the date of recruitment and issued for appointment to post under the Government of India and the affidavit claims to have been filed with the respondents, has not been produced with the respondents, he is not entitled to any relief. 13. However, the petitioner- Pradeep Kumar Sen would be entitled to be considered in the category of a General PH, if at any stage, he falls in the merit. 14. So far as the case of petitioner Gajendra Singh Meena is concerned, who has claimed his status as ST, his case would fall in a different category, inasmuch as insofar as SC and ST are concerned, they're recognized for both State and Central lists and, therefore, recognition under one list/certificate issued for Central services can very well be utilized for the State services also. 15. The Allahabad High Court in Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.Writ A. No. 15525 of 2018 decided on 25.7.2018, after referring to the judgment in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra) distinguished the said judgment and came to the conclusion that in case of SC, the certificate issued for Central services would be valid. The same analogy would apply to the case of ST. 16. In view of said fact situation, petitioner- Gajendra Singh Meena is entitled to the relief. 17. Consequently, while CWP No. 2581/2022 is dismissed, CWP No. 2588/2022 is allowed. The same analogy would apply to the case of ST. 16. In view of said fact situation, petitioner- Gajendra Singh Meena is entitled to the relief. 17. Consequently, while CWP No. 2581/2022 is dismissed, CWP No. 2588/2022 is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner- Gajendra Singh Meena as 'ST' and in case he is otherwise eligible and has obtained marks higher than the cutoff, his name may be included in the final select list.