Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17880 of 2018 Petitioner :- Km. Pabita Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is an applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Female) in U.P. Police. She has scored 415 marks, which is above the cut off in respect of OBC category candidate. Submission is that the authorities have wrongly denied benefit of OBC category to petitioner, inasmuch as petitioner possesses such a caste certificate issued by the competent authority.
Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner has mentioned 20.1.2016 as the date on which caste certificate has been issued to her. This caste certificate has been issued for appointment to the post under the Government of India. The subsequent certificate issued for employment in U.P. State has been issued to petitioner on 20.11.2017.
Learned Standing Counsel points out that as per the procedure prescribed for recruitment, details of OBC certificate had to be uploaded online and based upon such information, the select list has been drawn and only thereafter the actual records are to be verified. It is pointed out that in the case of the petitioner her caste certificate is not in the format prescribed in the advertisement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner since belongs to OBC category, she is entitled to be granted benefit of the status, which she possesses and mere technicality cannot be allowed to prevail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the materials brought on record.
The appointment to the post in question has to be undertaken strictly in terms of the advertisement. The advertisement clearly contemplates filing of online application with details of the caste certificate clearly feeded therein. The petitioner in the details submitted has referred to his caste certificate issued for employment with the Central Government. The petitioner has admittedly not submitted his OBC certificate in the format prescribed in the advertisement itself. It is possible that petitioner's caste is OBC in the State also, but such facts are not mentioned in the online format, and no exception can be taken if benefit of OBC status is denied to him. It is also pointed out that entire recruitment has already been concluded with issuance of final select list on 21st of May, 2018. Unless the petitioner can show illegality in the action of respondents on account of which she is denied benefit of OBC status, this Court would not be inclined to interfere. The Full Bench of this Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (FB) 2017 (5) ADJ 494, has otherwise observed that terms of advertisement would have to be scrupulously followed.
It is also relevant to note that about 29000 appointments were to be made and online applications submitted exceeded figure of 22 lacs. This Court is of the view that if the State authorities, in such circumstances, have scrupulously followed the terms of advertisement, and no illegality is otherwise shown in the process, the aspects of equity and sympathy would not be available to be pressed to interfere with the recruitment involving large number of posts.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Anil