Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8868 of 2019 Petitioner :- Seema Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel has received written instructions dated 30 May 2019 from the office of second respondent, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow (for short 'Board').
The writ petition, on consent, is being decided, at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit.
Petitioner applied for Constable (female) under the OBC category, against Recruitment-2015, she came to be selected. The candidature of the petitioner was cancelled under the OBC category by the impugned order dated 3 May 2019 passed by the third respondent, Additional Secretary (Recruitment) Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, noting therein that petitioner produced the domicile certificate dated 18 July 2016 which was beyond the cutoff date i.e. 24 February 2016 for submission of application form.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had produced the domicile certificate dated 27 September 2014, as indicated by the petitioner in the application form, which is within the cutoff date, however, the authorities relying upon the subsequent domicile certificate which she obtained for other purposes have rejected the claim of the petitioner ignoring the domicile certificate mentioned in the application form which was duly produced in original before the authorities.
It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is being subjected to harassment by the respondent and this is the fourth round of litigation. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 572 of 2018, instituted by the petitioner, allowed the appeal vide order dated 4 July 2018. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
"Under the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ on the count that the domicile certificate as well as Other Backward Class certificate submitted by the appellant does not tally with the particulars of the certificates given in the application form.
In appeal, only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that finding arrived at by learned Single Bench is contrary to the facts available on record as the particulars given in the application form are the same as given in the certificates concerned. The application form of the appellant-Ms. Seema Patel is available on record at Page No. 75 and certificates relating to caste and domicile are available on record at Page Nos. 122 and 123, respectively.
From perusal of the Other Backward Class certificate issued by competent Authority, it is apparent that it is dated 06.02.2016 bearing Nos. 673163002246. The same particulars are referred in the application form submitted by the appellant. So far as domicile certificate is concerned, it is dated 27.09.2014 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raja Talab, Varanasi. In the application form, the details given also tally with the contents of the certificate.
Having considered this factual aspect of the matter, we are of the view that learned Standing Counsel erred while dismissing the petition for writ while arriving at the conclusion that the particulars given in the domicile certificate and the caste certificate does not tally with the particulars given in the application form.
In result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 29.05.2018 is set aside to the extent it relates to appellant-Ms. Seema Patel D/o Shivdhani Patel. The writ petition is remanded to Single Bench for its adjudication afresh on merits."
Pursuant thereof, the writ court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order of the Division Bench directing the authorities to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner. The order was not complied, constrained petitioner had to take recourse to contempt proceedings. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed.
The facts, inter se, parties is not in dispute. Petitioner applied for constable (female) under the OBC category, she came to be selected obtaining 418.7 marks as against the cutoff marks 410.6. Her candidature under the OBC category was rejected merely for the reason that she produced domicile certificate beyond the cutoff date provided for the submission of the application form. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner had mentioned/declared in the form that she is having domicile certificate of the State dated 27 September 2014. The respondent authorities instead of directing the petitioner to produce the domicile certificate as declared by her in the form, mechanically rejected the candidature of the petitioner relying upon a subsequent domicile certificate. The Division Bench of this Court recorded in the order that the domicile certificate mentioned by the petitioner has been duly issued by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner did not produce the domicile certificate dated 27 September 2014 at the time of document verification but had produced the certificate of a subsequent date. The learned Standing Counsel is not disputing that the domicile certificate dated 27 September 2014 was placed on record in every round of litigation and the counsel for the petitioner has also produced the original certificate before this Court.
Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the Court, the second respondent has taken a hyper technical view in not accepting the domicile certificate mentioned in the application form. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected mechanically relying on a document which was not part of the application form, the approach of the authorities is not proper. The genuineness of the domicile certificate dated 27 September 2014 brought on record is not being disputed by the respondents. The approach of the authorities should have been to facilitate and help the selected candidate instead of subjecting and exploiting a female OBC candidate to harassment on one ground or the other. The conduct and approach is unbecoming of a selection body which is a State engaged in recruitment.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered on the domicile certificate mentioned in the application form.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3 May 2019, passed by the office of second respondent, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, is set aside and quashed. The candidature of the petitioner shall be considered under the OBC category and the consequential order thereafter shall be passed by the second respondent within two weeks from the date of service of this order. Petitioner, a female, from the marginalized section of society was subjected to multiple litigation is entitled to cost. The cost of litigation is assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the second respondent.
The learned Standing Counsel to ensure compliance of the order.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 K.K. Maurya