Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14047 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanju Saroj And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioners are aggrieved by their non selection for appointment on the post of Constable in U.P. Police in SC category and OBC category, pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2015.
The controversy raised in this petition in respect of petitioner no.1 stands adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 13.7.2018, passed in Writ Petition No.14714 of 2018 (Nishant Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others). Operative portion of the order reads as under:-
"In such circumstances, merely for the reason that Scheduled Caste certificate is not on the format, the authorities would not be justified in denying petitioner's consideration for appointment in Scheduled Caste category. Even otherwise, disclosure, which is contained in the format, is clearly recorded in the caste certificate issued to the petitioner and relied upon by him. Such certificate has, otherwise, been issued by the authorities of the State. In such circumstances, the respondents would not be justified in treating the petitioner to be an unreserved category candidate. This petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the direction upon the authorities concerned to treat the petitioner as a Scheduled Caste category candidate and to pass further orders in respect of his candidature.
It goes without saying that correctness of the certificate would, otherwise, be open to be examined before issuing a formal order of appointment to the petitioner.
Required consideration would be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly".
For the reasons recorded therein, this writ petition is also disposed of, only in respect of petitioner no.1, on the same terms.
In so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the facts are that in terms of the advertisement issued, an OBC candidate had to annex OBC certificate issued between 01.04.2015 and 17.02.2016. It is also stated that unless certificate of this period is annexed in prescribed format, the same shall not be taken note of.
Although learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijoroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and another reported 2016(4) SCC 754, but the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit on the strength thereof inasmuch as the Full Bench of this Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (FB) 2017 (5) ADJ 494 has been pleased to examine the judgment of the Apex Court and thereafter hold that the case of Ram Kumar Giroroya (supra) is distinct on the facts and has no applicability in the facts of the present case. The terms of the advertisement are clearly binding. Since the petitioner has failed to produce OBC certificate of the specified period as was mandatorily required in the advertisement, no exception can be taken.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, in respect of petitioner no.2.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Anil