Shiv Kesh v. UOI and Ors.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of the respondent to appoint him as a constable with the Railway Protection Force pursuant to the recruitment process initiated in terms of the Notice No.1/2007 dated 5th June, 2007 in the employment news. This notice advertised the initiation of the process undertaken by the respondent for recruitment of 1165 posts of constables.

2. The petitioner had applied in the OBC Category. It is 2010:DHC:5459-DB had applied under the reserved category was required to produce the caste certificate (SC/ST/OBC) issued by the District Authority on the prescribed proforma. The petitioner was found fit in the physical efficiency test and had also successfully undertaken the written examination held on 10th November, 2008.

3. It is after this event when a dispute has arisen. The petitioner has contended that he learnt about the result of the written examination from its publication on 16th January, 2009 in the Amar Ujala Newspaper at Saharanpur U.P. By this notification, the petitioner also learnt that he was required to produce the prescribed documents which included the High School Certificate and Mark Sheet as well as the aforenoticed caste certificate on 17th March, 2009 for verification by the respondents.

4. Before this court, the petitioner has placed a copy of the caste certificate dated 17th March, 2009 issued from the office of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, which certifies that the petitioner belongs to the Baddai caste and his father’s annual income is `2,23,128/-. It has also been certified that the petitioner does not fall in the creamy layer. This certificate also notified that the petitioner’s caste has been recognized as falling in the Other Backward Class and details of the notifications in this behalf have been set out.

5. On the other hand, the petitioner has contended that he had applied for issuance of the certificate in the prescribed format on 13th March, 2009 to the competent authority at Saharanpur and had been issued this certificate on 17th March,

2009. As per the public notice issued by the respondents, this certificate along with the school leaving certificate were to be submitted with the respondents at their office at Jagadhari. It has been explained that the distance between Saharanpur and the office at Jagadhari is about 29 kms and that the petitioner had duly submitted the caste certificate with the respondents along with all other documents.

6. The respondents contend that this certificate was not received by them.

7. We find that the respondents do not dispute the receipt of the other documents from the petitioner on the 17th March,

2009. It is an admitted position that no receipt is issued to the applicants against receipt of the required and prescribed documents from them. The recruitment process entails handling of documents relating to thousands of candidates. There would be substance in the petitioner’s contention that the certificate submitted by the petitioner is very well misplaced in the records.

8. In this background, in the absence of any other material, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and accept his statement that copy of the caste certificate was also furnished with the other documents.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents informs us that along with the application, the petitioner had submitted a caste certificate from the state authority in the format required by the state. It is undisputed that even this certificate informs that the petitioner belongs to the Baddai caste which has been recognized as OBC for the purposes of employment in the state. This fact also supports the contention of the petitioner that he had applied for the caste certificate in the prescribed format for employment with the respondents on 13th March, 2009 which was received by him on 17th March, 2009. The caste in both the certificates admittedly remains the same.

10. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, the present writ petition was filed along with the interim application seeking reservation of one post of Constable. On 3rd December, 2009, this court had passed an order on this application directing that if the writ petition succeeds, it would be obligation of the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner by either creating an additional post withdrawing the empanelment of the last selected person as per the select list.