Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4362 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishesh Kumar,Bhairo Prasad Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of constable pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated by the Government of U.P. on 29th December, 2015, for which advertisement was issued by the U.P. Police Recruitment Board. Last date of making application against the aforesaid advertisement was 17.02.2016. The petitioner claimed benefit of reservation meant for scheduled caste candidate on the ground that his caste is Jatav, which appears at serial no. 24 of the Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order, 1950 issued in exercise of powers conferred under clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India. A certificate to that effect has also been annexed and was ultimately mentioned in the on-line application. Date of caste certificate in the on-line application is mentioned as 18.07.2014 but at the time of document verification, the petitioner produced another caste certificate dated 19.08.2016. The authorities of State have not granted benefit of reservation to the petitioner on the ground that caste certificate produced before the authorities was obtained after the cut of date for making application i.e. 17.02.2016 and that a different caste certificate was claimed by the petitioner on his on-line application. The petitioner, accordingly, has been treated as a candidate in unreserved category and as he has not been able to secure cut of marks fixed for unreserved category, as such appointment has been denied to him.
Petitioner submits that a caste certificate was issued to him on 18.07.2014 and its copy has also been enclosed along with the rejoinder affidavit. In this caste certificate name of petitioner's father is mentioned as Rambabu. In all other certificate issued to the petitioner his father's name is mentioned as Rambabu Singh. It is urged that the petitioner instead of getting the caste certificate issued on 18.07.2014 corrected, applied for a fresh caste certificate and the same was issued to him on 19.08.2016. In both the certificates petitioner is shown as a scheduled caste belonging to Jatav caste. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijoroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Servivce Selection Board and another; 2016(4) SCC 754, the petitioner's candidature ought not to be eliminated from scheduled caste and denial of appointment to him is bad in law.
A counter affidavit has been filed, in which it is asserted that caste certificate secured after the cut of date cannot be considered and as the petitioner has not secured the cut of marks in unreserved category, the appointment has rightly been denied to him.
I have heard Sri Vishesh Kumar for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
It is admitted to the respondent authorities that the petitioner's caste is Jatav, which is duly notified as scheduled caste in the State of U.P. by Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India.
Two caste certificate issued to the petitioner are also not in dispute. Both these certificates have been produced at the time of verification of documents. In first certificate name of petitioner's father is mentioned as Rambabu and in other certificate name of petitioner's father is mentioned as Rambabu Singh. Once the issuance of caste certificate is not disputed, the respondent cannot deny consideration to petitioner's claim only on the ground that in the first caste certificate dated 18.07.2014 the name of petitioner's father is not complete. It is only the surname, which is missing, otherwise the name of petitioner, his address and identity remains the same.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Kumar Gijoroya (supra) has been pleased to observe as under in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18:-
“16. In the case of Pushpa (supra), relevant paragraphs from the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra) have also been extracted, which read thus :-
“11......
17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.
18. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.”
Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly deprecated the practice of denial of benefit admissible to a scheduled caste candidate on minor technicalities, as the constitutional scheme is to offer encouragement to such candidates, on account of their social and economic backwardness. Therefore, denial of such benefit merely on the ground of technicalities would go contrary to the constitutional scheme itself.
Since the identity of the petitioner is not in dispute nor is it in issue that petitioner has been issued valid caste certificate, the authorities cannot deny consideration to claim of petitioner in the category of scheduled caste candidates. Denial of appointment to the petitioner, in such circumstances, cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured marks above the cut of marks in the scheduled caste category.
In such circumstances, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner's claim in the category of scheduled caste candidate and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The petitioner would also be entitled to be placed in the seniority list taking into consideration the marks secured by him in the reserved category. However, for the period he has not worked, no salary shall be paid to the petitioner.
With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Pkb/