Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14041 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kiran Pal Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jeetendra Singh,Himanshu Kumar,Ravi Shankar Prasad(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Sabhajeet Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in Central Police Organizations for which recruitment was initiated in the year 2015. Final result has been declared on 2.2.2017 in which petitioner has not been selected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner in her application form had claimed consideration in the State of West Bengal and has also secured marks above the cut-off in the general category, but her candidature has not been considered.
Noticing such contention of the petitioner, following orders were passed by this Court on 16.9.2019:-
"Submission is that though petitioner has secured marks above the cut off marks in the respective category, yet she has not been selected.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter. Post as fresh on 26th September 2019."
Sri Vidyarathi, holding brief of Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has produced a letter of the Staff Selection Commission dated 25.9.2019, as per which the petitioner is a resident of Uttar Pradesh and has produced her domicile certificate of Uttar Pradesh. It has also been annexed alongwith the application form. Petitioner has scored 53 marks, whereas the cut-off for the State of Uttar Pradesh in petitioner's category is 67. An objection is taken on the ground that results have been declared in the year 2017 and the writ petition filed after two and a half years is otherwise grossly barred by latches.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no requirement of possessing domicile of State of West Bengal for applying as a candidate of that State, and therefore, the authorities have not correctly examined her candidature.
The instructions furnished on behalf of the respondents clearly narrate that recruitment notification provided for the candidates to submit domicile certificate of the State to which they belong and are to be considered from. It is otherwise inconceivable that a candidate would apply for appointment from a particular State to which he does not belong and is not having the domicile certificate. The object of issuing domicile is to certify that the candidate belongs to a particular State and is considered from that State only. Once it is found that the petitioner belongs to State of Uttar Pradesh and the domicile certificate of State of Uttar Pradesh has also been annexed, it would be difficult to accept petitioner's contention that she can apply as a candidate of West Bengal. Having failed to secure marks above the cut-off in the category to which she belongs i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh, petitioner can have no right to claim consideration in the West Bengal category.
Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Ashok Kr.