Allowed

Raj Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2018WRIC/3374/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of OBC candidature for UGCNET JRF and Assistant Professor post. Court quashed rejection orders, directing respondents to verify petitioner's 'Bhar' caste certificates and take fresh decision within six weeks without expressing opinion on certificate genuineness.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 23.09.2015 and 03.11.2016 quashed; second respondent directed to take fresh decision on petitioner's OBC candidature after verifying specified caste certificates.

Raj Kumar Rajbhar Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3374 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Rajbhar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Ajay Kumar Rastogi,Rijwan Ali Akhtar

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4; and Sri Ajay Kumar Rastogi for the respondent no.2 (University Grants Commission).

¶6

The present petition assail orders dated 23.09.2015 and 03.11.2016 passed by the second respondent by which the candidature of the petitioner as an OBC candidate, in UGCNET for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) as well as eligibility for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, has been rejected.

¶7

The petitioner had applied as an OBC candidate by disclosing his caste as " Rajbhar ". The candidature of the petitioner as a member of Other Backward Classes was not accepted because in the Central Government list of Other Backward Classes, the caste " Rajbhar " was not mentioned. By impugned letter dated 23.09.2015, issued by the Joint Secretary, UGC-NET, the petitioner was informed that he was not evaluated as an OBC candidate and since he failed to secure minimum qualifying marks as was required by a general category candidate, he was being declared unsuccessful.

¶8

Upon being informed about his fate, the petitioner represented to the authority that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajbhar and Bhar caste are considered one and the same and both are entered in the list of Other Backward Classes though in the Central Government notification only " Bhar " caste finds mention in the list of Other Backward Classes. In support of his claim the petitioner submitted a fresh caste certificate, dated 24.09.2015, disclosing him as member of Bhar caste. The petitioner also forwarded relevant extract of the notification disclosing that, at Serial No.37, caste Bhar / Rajbhar is entered in the list of Other Backward Classes recognized and notified by the State Government.

¶9

The above representation was processed by the second respondent but the same was rejected by the impugned order

¶10

dated 03rd November, 2016 (Annexure No.10 to the petition).

¶11

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.11.2016 it becomes clear that the petitioner had supplied another OBC caste certificate in which his caste was mentioned as Bhar , which was admittedly one of the Other Backward Classes notified by the Central Government. The impugned order further reflects that the petitioner had provided copy of the Gazette notification of the State of Uttar Pradesh in which Bhar and Rajbhar were both mentioned in the list of Other Backward Classes.

¶12

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.09.2015, and the subsequent order dated 03.11.2016, on the ground that once it was brought to the notice of the second respondent that the petitioner belongs to Bhar caste, which finds mention in the list of Other Backward Classes notified by the Central Government as also the State Government, in absence of any finding that the caste certificate provided by the petitioner was forged or invalid for any good reason, there was no legal justification not to treat the petitioner as a member of Other Backward Classes.

¶13

On the petition of the petitioner, on 25.01.2017, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶14

"Learned Additional Solicitor General of India has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1, Sri Rijwan Ali Akhtar has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶15

Four weeks' time is allowed to all the respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶16

List thereafter."

¶17

Thereafter, when no counter affidavit was filed, on 06.12.2017, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶18

"As last opportunity, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is permitted three weeks time to file counter affidavit failing which a responsible gazetted officer from the office of Secretary, Revenue, U.P. Lucknow shall remain personally present in the court along with the entire original record.

¶19

List on 2nd of January 2018."

¶20

Despite the stop order dated 06.12.2017, neither Staterespondents nor the second respondent has filed counter affidavit.

¶21

This Court could have fixed another date to secure the personal

¶22

presence of the officer for not complying with the earlier direction given by this Court but considering the fact that the second respondent has not taken any decision to discard the caste certificate produced by the petitioner disclosing him as member of Bhar caste, which, admittedly, falls in the category of Other Backward Classes as would be apparent from order dated 03.11.2016 (Annexure No.10 to the petition), this Court considers it appropriate to allow this petition and set aside the orders dated 23.09.2015 and 03.11.2016 passed by the second respondent with a direction upon the second respondent to take a fresh decision on the candidature of the petitioner as a member of Other Backward Classes, after seeking verification of his caste certificates dated 15.09.2015 (at page 39 of the paper book) and 24.09.2015 (at page 40 of the paper book) whereunder the petitioner has been disclosed as member of Bhar caste.

¶23

Accordingly, the orders dated 23.09.2015 and 03.11.2016 passed by the second respondent are hereby quashed. The second respondent shall take a fresh decision as regards candidature of the petitioner as a member of Other Backward Classes, namely, " Bhar ", after seeking verification of the caste certificates mentioned above. Fresh decision should be taken, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶24

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of genuineness of the caste certificates produced by the petitioner before this Court.

¶25

The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶26

Order Date :- 2.1.2018 AKShukla/-

Raj Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samsuddin Vs Jt. Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Vaishnavi Balika Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Allahabad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shree Gopal Adarsh Vidhyalaya Society Hathras and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Utkarsh Srivastava Vs Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Lucknow and 2 Ors.