Petitioner applied for Constable post as OBC candidate but was rejected for using an older caste certificate. Court dismissed petition, holding terms of advertisement mandating a specific certificate period are binding and exception cannot be made.
Petitioner not entitled to relief; Writ Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3823 of 2020
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pal Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deena Nath Mishra,Amit Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Satish Kumar Rai,Vinay Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Constable as OBC candidate has been rejected on the ground that petitioner's caste certificate was not of the specified period. In terms of the advertisement the OBC certificate had to be of a date after 4.3.2011 whereas the caste certificate of petitioner was issued in the year 2010 and such certificate is also not as per the prescribed format. Similar controversy has already been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.21833 of 2017 vide order dated 29.8.2018, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"I have heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh for the petitioner and Shri Satish Kumar Rai for the respondents.
Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order / memorandum dated 18.04.2017, as per which petitioner's claim for appointment stands rejected. The aforesaid order has been passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Writ A No. 877 of 2012 (Avnish Kumar Patel Vs. Union of India and Another) decided on 13.12.2016.
Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the selection proceeding undertaken by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Allahabad in the year 2011. Petitioner had applied in OBC category, but the benefit of such category has been denied to him on the ground that certificate annexed by the petitioner is not as per the requirement specified in the advertisement.
Admittedly, the advertisement contains a clause, as per which the OBC certificate, issued within a specified period by the competent authority, had to be annexed. The certificate also had to be in the specified format. The first certificate is dated 23.08.2011 for appointment under the Office of State Government. Although the second certificate is in the correct format, but it has been issued after the last date fixed for filling the application form. Such certificate is, otherwise, not in consonance with the specific terms of the advertisement, which required issuance of certificate within a specified period by the competent authority.
Although learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijoroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and another 2016(4) SCC 754, but the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit on the strength thereof; in as much as, 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 to it. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly."
Controversy being identical and in view of the fact that petitioner's caste certificate is not in the prescribed format and has been issued before the period specified in the advertisement, no relief can be granted. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2020 Ashok Kr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to appointment as Constable in OBC category when his caste certificate predates the advertisement.
Whether earlier exception to similar requirements is applicable to the present facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No.21833 of 2017Referred¶6
Avnish Kumar Patel Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶8
Writ A No. 877 of 2012 (Avnish Kumar Patel Vs. Union of India and another)
Ram Kumar Gijoroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection BoardDistinguished¶11
Ram Kumar Gijoroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board 2016(4) SCC 754 · Who else cites this
Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and OthersRelied on¶11
(FB) 2017 (5) ADJ 494
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Kumar Pal
Union Of India
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
