Allowed

Jyoti Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018WRIA/14814/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that rejecting the petitioner's candidature for Constable post due to a non-standard certificate format and minor discrepancy in marks calculation was arbitrary. The court quashed the rejection and directed authorities to consider her application.

What did the court decide?

Directing authorities to consider petitioner's candidature without denying appointment on the grounds of certificate format or marks discrepancy.

Jyoti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14814 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jyoti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Shankar Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶3

Petitioner has scored 392.44 marks for selection to the post of Constable (Female) in U.P. Police; whereas, the cut of mark in the category of Scheduled Tribes candidate is 377.23 marks. Petitioner's grievance is that though she secured marks above the cut of and she possesses the required certificate of Scheduled Tribes candidate, yet she has not been selected.

¶4

Learned standing counsel was granted time to obtain instructions in the matter. The contention of the respondents is that petitioner's ST certificate is not on the prescribed format and that, petitioner's high school marks have not been correctly mentioned.

¶5

Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner passed high school from CBSE Board and marks have been given in grade. The certificate has also been annexed, who would go to show that petitioner secured 6.4 in the grading system. In the online application form also she has filled 6.40. Petitioner also appears to have filled 61.44% in the high school marks, which is stated to be incorrect. As a matter of fact, if the marks are attempted to be converted into percentage, petitioner has scored 64% marks, which is above the marks disclosed by her in the certificate. Petitioner has, otherwise, correctly disclosed CGPA and therefore, percentage was not relevant. Since the petitioner has shown correct CGPA marks scored by her in Class X, therefore, her certificate could not have been discarded and the action of the respondents, in treating the petitioner's high school marks to be zero, is clearly arbitrary. The action of the respondents, in non-suiting the petitioner on this count, is, therefore, found to be arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶6

So far as petitioner's caste is concerned, it is to be observed that petitioner has clearly mentioned the details of her Scheduled Tribes status and also, annexed requisite certificate. The certificate shows that petitioner's caste is " Kharvar which is covered by the Scheduled Tribes declared for the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Presidential Order of 1950, as modified in 1967, issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijoroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and another 2016(4) SCC 754 has observed as under:

¶7

"16. In the case of Pushpa (supra), relevant paragraphs from the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra) have also been extracted, which read thus :-

¶8

"11......

¶9

17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.

¶10

18. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful."

¶11

In such circumstances, merely for the reason that Scheduled Tribes certificate is not on the format, the authorities would not be justified in denying petitioner's consideration for appointment in Scheduled Tribes 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 her. Such certificate has, otherwise, been issued by the authorities of the State.

¶12

In the facts and circumtstances, noticed above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the authorities concerned to consider petitioner's candidature and her appointment would not be denied on the aforesaid two grounds.

¶13

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.

¶14

Required consideration would be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Amit Mishra

Jyoti Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chandravati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Udai Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashmpal Singh and 106 Others Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others