Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12497 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sateesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Hira Lal Yadav,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. Following orders were passed in the matter on 19.8.2019:-
"This is the third writ petition by the same petitioner in respect of his grievance relating to non consideration of his claim for appointment to the post of Constable. The first Writ Petition No.15555 of 2018 was disposed of with the direction upon the authorities to consider petitioner's claim. The claim was rejected. The order was assailed in Writ Petition No.2234 of 2019, which was disposed of on 21.2.2019. The authorities have again rejected petitioner's claim on the ground that his OBC certificate has been for employment in Central Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon earlier adjudication of this Court which specifically takes note of the OBC certificate issued on 2.2.2016, by the competent authority for employment in State Government. It was this certificate which was relied upon in the online application form also. Submission is that the order impugned is in teeth of the observations made by this Court in the earlier writ petition and suffers from non application of mind.
Prima facie the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner appears to have substance.
The Additional Secretary of the Police Recruitment Board is, therefore, directed to examine this matter and to file his personal affidavit, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the same petitioner.
Put up as fresh on 2.9.2019."
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents stating that at the time of document verification the petitioner had not placed before the authorities the caste certificate issued in respect of State of Uttar Pradesh and that the caste certificate, which had been relied upon, was in respect of jobs relating to Central Government.
3. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed, in which it is stated that petitioner has clearly mentioned the caste certificate number in his online application form and the same was also produced before the authority concerned. It is also submitted that this aspect had otherwise been examined by the Court and the plea that petitioner had not placed the correct certificate before the authorities was not accepted by the Court. Submission is that reiteration of earlier stand by the Police Recruitment Board is not only contrary to the records but also is contemptuous in nature.
4. Perusal of the records would go to show that petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.15555 of 2018, which came to be disposed of vide following orders passed on 2.8.2018:- "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Petitioners have approached this Court with their grievance that they have scored marks above the cut off in the respective category, yet they have not been selected for appointment to the post of Police Constable, pursuant advertisement issued on 29th December, 2015. Alongwith supplementary affidavit filed today the online application form has been annexed in which petitioners have clearly mentioned their status as OBC non-creamy layer and the OBC certificate has also been brought on record. The OBC certificates have been issued to the two petitioners on 10.2.2016 and 2.2.2016, which are as per the recruitment in notification, as well as in light of the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (FB) 2017 (5) ADJ 494. Petitioners have scored marks above the cut off and no reasons have been disclosed as to why petitioners have not been selected.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that claim of petitioners would be considered for appointment, in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon respondent nos.2 and 3 to accord consideration to petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Constable, considering their marks scored in the final examination. The petitioners since have produced their OBC certificates of the requisite period i.e. between 1.4.2015 to 17.2.2016, they shall be treated as OBC candidate subject to verification of their certificate. The required consideration would be made within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken, accordingly. "
5. The authorities thereafter rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that he had not produced his caste certificate, which had been mentioned in the online application form at the time of documents verification. This order was then challenged in Service Single No. 2234 of 2019 and the petition was disposed of vide following orders passed on 21.2.2019:-
"Petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Constable has not been considered, on the ground that OBC certificate, furnished by the petitioner, is not issued for employment with the State Government and has been issued only for the Central Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to petitioner's application, which clearly mentions the serial no. of his caste certificate as 451163003107. It is pointed out that a caste certificate has been issued for employment with the State Government on 02.02.2016. Another caste certificate, of the same date, has been issued for the Central Government also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the certificates were produced, but the authorities have failed to take note of the certificate issued for the State Government.
Prima facie, this Court finds substance in the contention advanced by the petitioner that he had furnished OBC certificate issued for employment with the State Government. It appears that certificates have been issued, both for the employment with Central Government and the State Government, on the same date. It appears that the authorities have only taken note of the certificate issued for the Central Government and the certificate issued for the State Government has been discarded.
In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to accord fresh consideration to petitioner's claim for appointment, keeping in view the observations made above, within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
It goes without saying that in case the petitioner had been issued a caste certificate by the State Government for employment with State and the same was relied upon in the application form, and also produced at the time of document verification, he shall be granted benefit of OBC status. Required consideration shall be made within a period of two months."
The authorities have again rejected the claim by taking the same stand.
6. It is not in issue that petitioner has a valid OBC certificate and the same was also mentioned in his online application form. The genuineness of this caste certificate is not in doubt. The fact that petitioner was treated in OBC category is also not in issue. The only ground taken is that at the time of document verification the petitioner had not produced this certificate but had instead produced a certificate relating to grant of employment by the Central Government. This stand of the respondent is not liable to be accepted for the simple reason that once petitioner had mentioned his caste certificate number in the online application form and such certificate was available, it would be difficult for the Court to accept the plea that though such certificate was in possession of petitioner, he would not produce the same. The online application form of the petitioner mentions the caste certificate serial no. as 451163003107 and such a certificate has been annexed as Annexure No.4, which is not doubted or disputed. Merely because petitioner produced an additional certificate at the time of document verification would not be a ground to deny consideration to petitioner's claim in the OBC category. The Court otherwise does not approve of the stand taken by respondents in repeatedly declining consideration to petitioner's claim, despite the fact that petitioner does possess requisite OBC certificate. The object of requiring the petitioner to produce a certificate is to ascertain whether the certificate in fact exists with the petitioner or not. Once the matter has been brought to this Court and the respondents are not disputing the correctness of the OBC certificate, the insistence that correct certificate was not produced, cannot be accepted to deny consideration to petitioner's claim. Consequently, the order impugned dated 15.7.2019 cannot be sustained and is quashed.
7. Writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider petitioner's claim for employment in the OBC category, and his candidature would not be overlooked on the ground that he does not possess the OBC certificate. The required consideration would be made within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Anil