Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 266 of 2019 Appellant :- Neelam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dadhi Bal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri D.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant. Learned Standing counsel has appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner appellant applied for appointment on the post of Constable (female) in U.P. Police as Other Backward Classes (in short OBC) candidate. In the on line application form she claimed herself to be of the OBC category and mentioned that she has a caste certificate dated 2.2.2016 of the competent authority. She secured 414.30 marks but was not selected for the reason that she was treated to be a candidate of general category as she had not submitted the original of the caste certificate when called upon.
The petitioner appellant filed writ petition no. 17740 of 2018 which was disposed of on 29.8.2018 with the direction to the authorities concerned to reconsider the matter of the petitioner appellant and to pass a reasoned order.
In pursuance thereof, the concerned authority rejected the claim of the petitioner appellant vide order dated 13th November 2018. The order categorically records that the petitioner appellant was called upon by the Committee on 20.7.2016 to produce the original certificates including the caste certificate as mentioned in the on line application form but she failed to produce any certificate of the OBC category and as such she was treated to be a candidate of general category wherein the last candidate obtained 418.77 marks. The petitioner appellant had secured much lesser marks and as such was not selected.
The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing another writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.1.2019 holding that despite fact that the petitioner appellant appeared before the Committee on 20th July 2016 she could not produce her OBC certificate, as a consequence of which she was rightlty treated to be of general category.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appellant appearing before the Committee on the aforesaid date she had actually produced her caste certificate of the OBC but it appears that due to some mistake the authorities have incorrectly recorded that no caste certificate was produced by the petitioner appellant. He also submits that once the petitioner appellant had in her possession the caste certificate which was issued on 2nd February 2016, there is no reason for her not to produce it before the Committee.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the dispute which arises is as to whether the petitioner had actually produced the caste certificate before the Committee on 20.7.2016. The petitioner appellant alleges that she has produced the caste certificate whereas the officer in her order record that caste certificate was not produced. This dispute as to whether such caste certificate was actually produced by the petitioner appellant or not or that the averment in the order that no such certificate was produced is a factual dispute which is beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction as it is a matter of evidence of the parties.
There is no reason for us not to accept the statement of fact as recorded in the order by the officer and to accept the version of the petitioner appellant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the writ Court has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.
The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner appellant to take recourse to civil remedies, if so advised.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 SKS