Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13277 of 2018 Petitioner :- Akshay Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel,Vikrant Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to treat the petitioner in OBC Category with respect to the selection held pursuant to the advertisement No. PRPB- 1(82)/2015 dated 29.12.2015.
It is contended that the petitioner had participated in each process of selection and having cleared the same, he was allowed to participate in the document verification process. During the said process, his candidature was rejected as an OBC category candidate and he was wrongly placed in the list of general category candidate. The dispute being raised is with regard to the action of the respondents in not granting benefit of OBC (Non Creamy Layer) to the petitioner.
On a pointed query made by the Court, as to caste certificate of the petitioner certifying him being belonging to the said category, reference had been made at page '33' of the paper book, which is a certificate in the format relevant for the purpose of applying for appointments under the Government of India.
The said certificate is not in the prescribed proforma as mentioned in clause 5.1 of the advertisement in question. Clause 5.1(3) category provides that to get benefit of OBC Category a candidate was required to submit the caste certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format. As the petitioner does not possess the requisite certificate to substantiate that he belongs to OBC category (Non Creamy Layer) being resident of the State of U.P., his candidature under the said category was rightly not considered.
Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that disparity between the two certificates issued for the services/appointments under the Government of India and for the State of U.P., has been subject matter of consideration in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others 2017 (5) ADJ 494 (FB).
This Court has observed in paragraph '27' reads as under:-
"For the purpose of seeking the benefit of reservation, it is imperative for a candidate to establish that he belongs to the OBC as recognised and identified by the State concerned and further that he/she does not fall within the field of exclusion. We have already noted that both conditions must be cumulatively satisfied".
Having carefully gone paragraph '27' of the said judgment, in the light of the question referred to the Full Bench, this Court is of the considered view that Full Bench judgment rather fortifies the view taken by this Court that to seek benefit of OBC category a candidate is required to establish that he is an OBC category candidate as classified and identified by the State of U.P.
In view of the said legal position, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner can be given benefit of OBC candidate on the basis of certificate dated 22.5.2015 (page '23' of the paper book). Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on clause '43' of the admission notification submits that the discrepancy in the original testimonial, if found, during the process of their document verification, can be rectified by the competent authority. It is contended that in the event the competent authority found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite certificate of being OBC candidate, it could have granted time to him to produce the relevant certificate.
This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the recruitment process cannot be withheld for the candidates who do not bring the relevant documents to establish their eligibility.
In the instant case, the document verification process was completed on 19.8.2016. The petitioner was informed at the relevant point of time that he could not be treated in OBC category. After a period of two years after declaration of the final result, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the select list which was finalized at that point of time.
For the above noted reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 AK Pandey