Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2207 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Gond Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission.
This petition has been preferred for a direction being issued commanding the U.P. Public Service Commission to recommend the appointment of the petitioner provisionally treating him to be one belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.
Undisputedly the petitioner does not have or hold a Caste Certificate evidencing him belonging to a Schedule Tribe. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an affidavit in this respect may be obtained from the petitioner and his candidature be evaluated on the strength of such an affidavit and the benefits of reservation as a Scheduled Tribe candidate is noticed only to be rejected since no direction issued by any Court can be read as authorising an affidavit as being a substitute for a Caste Certificate. Bearing in mind the detailed directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241] and in the absence of a Caste Certificate, this Court finds itself unable to command the Commission to act further in terms of the relief as framed.
The writ petition is dismissed.
After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the following directions as framed in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil:
“10. In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non- official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.”
This direction cannot come to the aid of the petitioner since undisputedly he applied for the grant of a Caste Certificate for the first time on 15 October 2018 whereas the recruitment exercise itself had been initiated on 21 November 2013.This, therefore is not a case where the respondents may have inordinately delayed the issuance of a Caste Certificate.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 LA/-