1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging result dated 2.3.2020, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of horizontal reservation for making selection on the post of Constable, Civil Police has been ignored on the ground that the certificate was not submitted on the prescribed format by the competent Authority.
3. Facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 16.11.2018 inviting applications from the eligible and qualified candidates to apply by giving vertical reservation to Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Other Backward Class as 21%, 2% and 27% respectively, as well as horizontal reservation to dependents of freedom fighters as 2%, ex-servicemen as 5%, homeguard as 5% and women as 20%. In pursuance to the advertisement petitioner being a member of the Schedule Caste community and also reservation against post reserved for the Homeguard applied for and in the selection scored 55.6033 marks and declared selected in the written examination vide result dated 21.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for verification of documents on 28.11.2019 and petitioner submitted certain documents including High School certificate and Intermediate marksheet, appointment letter dated 3.11.2019, Certificate of basic training and advanced training dated 30.11.2014 as well as certificate of Schedule Caste community for being appointed on the post of Constable, Civil Police.
The petitioner appeared in the physical eligibility test on 7.1.2020 at 35 Battalion, PAC, Lucknow wherein he qualified. The result of the final selection was declared on 2.3.2020 wherein the petitioner's candidature has been rejected on the ground that he got 55.6033 marks whereas the cut off for the Scheduled Caste Male PAC is 149.5773 marks.
4. Assailing the impugned selection, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the candidate of General Category Homeguard is 28.667 marks and for the Scheduled Caste Homeguard it is 26.2691 marks, therefore exclusion of the candidature of the petitioner in not considering under quota of Homeguard is wholly illegal and unjustified.
5. Learned counsel next submits that neither under the advertisement nor under the Rules, there is prescribed format for submission of homeguard certificate, therefore the ground of rejection in ignoring the homeguard certificate of the petitioner is per se illegal. His next submission is that requirement under the advertisement was that the homeguard certificate should be issued by the District Commandant, Homeguards and no prescribed format was provided in the advertisement. In the said background, his submission is that the assumption drawn by the respondents is erroneous in nature and cannot be accepted.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, in support of the ground taken in the counter affidavit in not selecting the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not submitted his homeguard certificate on the prescribed format.
7. On a query made to learned Standing Counsel that where is the format prescribed, he has made statement that in the counter affidavit the prescribed format is not made available, therefore the same cannot be filed. When this Court invited attention of the learned Standing Counsel on the provisions under the advertisement in regard to required certificate, then he kept mum and could not produce the format prescribed under Rules or in the advertisement.
8. Last submission of learned Standing Counsel is that the petitioner was not having requisite experience certificate of homeguard issued by the District Commandant on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 8.12.2018.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. On perusal of the advertisement, it is reflected that the formats were prescribed for other candidates defined under the advertisement, but no format was prescribed for the candidates who applied under homeguard category having 5% horizontal reservation. Learned Standing Counsel is also not able to point out or to place format to submit certificate issued by the District Commandant, Homeguards, therefore the stand taken in the counter affidavit is misconceived.
10. In regard to submission of learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner was not having requisite experience certificate of homeguard issued by the District Commandant on the last of submission of the application form, I have examined the the submission in the light of the requirement made in the advertisement.
In the advertisement, last date of submission of application form has been prescribed as 8.12.2018 and the petitioner was required service certificate of the post of Homeguard issued by the District Commandant and three years' experience on the post of Homeguard on the last date of submission of application form. The service certificate of the petitioner was issued on 3.11.2011 by the District Commandant which is at page 57 of the paper-book and as the petitioner was granted appointment on 3.11.2011 on the post of Homeguard he was having more than three years' experience on the post of Homeguard, therefore the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel is devoid of merit and has no substance.
11. In regard to submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that assumption drawn by the respondent that the certificate of Homeguard was not submitted on prescribed format, I have gone through the entire material on record but no format was prescribed for submission of certificate issued by the District Commandant. The petitioner has submitted certificate issued by the District Commandant which is at page 61 of the writ petition and in case there was any doubt to the respondents in regard to genuineness of certificate that would have been verified from the District Commandant, Homeguard of the concerned district. Even otherwise, if there would have been any proforma or certificate issued by the District Commandant certifying experience that is also required to be verified in case of doubt came into existence. The respondents while ignoring the claim of the petitioner for selection have not come with stand that the certificate produced by the petitioner is doubtful and in-genuine.
12. In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have committed manifest error of law in ignoring the claim of the petitioner for selection on the post of Constable, Civil Police under Homeguard Schedule Caste category by giving 5 % horizontal reservation provided under the advertisement. The petitioner has made out a ground for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the selection on the post of Constable, Civil Police under Homeguard Schedule caste category.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for selection on the post of Constable, Civil Police under Homeguard Schedule Caste category quota and to pass an appropriate order in this regard within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 GK Sinha