Dismissed

Rajesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2019WPC/394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of rejection from reservation benefits. The Court held the caste certificate was invalid as issued by a non-competent authority and after the cut-off date. The matter was also covered by a prior batch of cases dismissed on identical grounds.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no direction to appoint the petitioner in the reserved category.

Rajesh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S).No. 394 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Rajesh Mandal … … … ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus -

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi.

¶7

The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Ranchi.

¶8

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi.

¶9

The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.

¶10

The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi.

¶11

… … ... …. Respondents

¶12

---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, AC to SC-VI For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Pripawall, Advocate

¶14

¶15

09/ 17.12.2019 Heard the parties.

¶16

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the decision uploaded on the website of respondent-JSSC vide notice No. 6862 dated 05.12.2018, so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby the benefits of reservation in BC-I category has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of nonsubmission of valid Caste Certificate issued prior to the cut-off date i.e. 25.04.2017 and he has been treated as general candidate for the purposes of appointment.

¶17

Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Commerce under the district of Godda, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has been declared qualified/ selected in the Main Examination conducted by respondent-JSSC and has duly submitted the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority prior to the cut-off date.

¶18

3. As per the factual matrix, the respondent-JSSC has floated Advt. No. 21/2016 for appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers f. The petitioner having the requisite qualification, i.e. Master of Commerce and B.Ed. from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, has applied for the same under BC-I Category.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner appeared in the selection process and declared successful for Commerce Subject under Godda District. The petitioner applied for caste certificate which has been issued by the Sub-divisional Officer on 15.09.2018, confirming that the petitioner belongs to Sundi Caste which falls under BC-I Category. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the respondent-JSSC on 19.02.2018 for verification of his certificates including caste certificate. The petitioner submitted the caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer as well as Sub-divisional Officer, which was duly accepted by the respondents without any objection. Thereafter, the respondent had uploaded another notice on the website vide memo dated 05.12.2018, whereby the candidature of the petitioner in BC-I category has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the valid caste certificate on the cut-off date i.e. 25.04.2017. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities have ignored and overlooked the caste certificates dated 28.09.2016 and 30.09.2016 and have arbitrarily and illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner for consideration under BC-I category. Upon rejection of his candidature, the petitioner approached the respondent-authorities, who in turn directed the petitioner to re-submit the caste certificate, in response to which he had again submitted the caste certificate on 17.12.2018 and 24.12.2018

¶21

Inspite of the repeated requests and reminders by the petitioner, when no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievances.

¶22

4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified in the eyes of law, particularly when the petitioner was in possession of the valid caste certificate issued by the competent authority prior to cut-off date and had duly submitted the same but the respondent-authorities had overlooked and ignored the same and candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel further argues that if the petitioner possesses the valid caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer on 30.09.2016 i.e. prior to the cut-off date of 25.04.2017, the action of the respondent in denying the benefits of reservation under BC-I category to the petitioner and treating him as General candidate is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

¶23

¶24

Constitution of India. Learned counsel further argues that in similar circumstances the respondent-JSSC had issued show-cause notice to the selected candidates but in case of the petitioner, they had proceeded against him without issuance of any show-cause notice or opportunity to furnish the required caste certificate, which is a clear-cut example of arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel lastly submits that for the reasons cited above, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner under BC-I category and offer letter of appointment to the petitioner.

¶25

5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that on being declared successful in the written test, the petitioner was called for verification of his testimonial on the 19.09.2018. On the date of verification of testimonials, the petitioner submitted the caste certificate dated 28.09.2016 issued by Circle Officer, Suriya Block and another caste certificate dated 15.09.2018, issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Suriya, Bagodar. During course of verification of testimonials, it was found that caste certificated dated 28.09.2016, is not valid for extending the benefits of reservation in terms of advertisement, in view of the fact that same has been issued by the Circle Officer and further, the caste certificate dated 15.09.2018 is also not valid as the same has been issued after the last date of submission of online application form, i.e. 25.04.2017. Since the petitioner failed to submit the valid cast certificate in terms of the advertisement and as such, the benefits of reservation was not extended to him and his candidature was considered under unreserved category. Learned counsel further argues that the contention of the petitioner that he has also submitted the caste certificate dated 30.09.2016 issued by the Sub-divisional Officer is not correct since in his online application neither he had mentioned about the same nor it was produced at the time of verification of testimonials on 19.09.2018. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the allegations as made in this writ applications are misleading, misconceived, not correct and as such, strongly denied by the respondents.

¶26

¶27

6. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference for the following facts and reasons:

¶28

I) Admittedly, the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was issued by the Circle Officer, who is not the competent authority to issue the same, rather it ought to have been issued by the Sub-divisional Officer in view of the advertisement floated by the respondent-JSSC.

¶29

II) The said caste certificate was not valid also on the ground that it was issued after the last date of submission of the online application form i.e. 25.04.2017, which is not in consonance with the advertisement.

¶30

III) The benefits of reservation was rightly not extended to the petitioner and as such, his candiature was considered in unreserved category for the purpose of appointment.

¶31

IV)

¶32

The issue involved in this writ application is now no more res-integra as the same fell for consideration before this Court in batch of cases numbered as W.P.(S). No. 3887 of 2018 (Khushboo Garg Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases and this Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed those cases vide order dated 20.12.2019 . The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and hence, no case is made out for interference. The relevant portion of the order dated 20.12.2019, passed in W.P.(S). No. 3887 of 2018 and analogous cases reads as under:

¶33

“In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the settled principles of law, this Court is of the considered view that prayer as made by the petitioners in the aforesaid cases, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the same will amount to violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that other candidates who could not submit their online application forms due to nonavailability of the requisite Caste Certificates, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, up to the last date of submission of online application forms, will be discriminated, as equal opportunity has to be given to all the candidates. It is not the case of the petitioners that any candidate securing lesser marks than the petitioners, have been selected under unreserved category. Since petitioners failed to fulfill requisite conditions stipulated in the advertisement and could not submit valid caste

¶34

¶35

certificate issued by competent authority within stipulated period, their candidatures under respective reserved categories have rightly been rejected. There is no case that any person having lesser marks than the petitioners have been declared successful under unreserved category ignoring the petitioners. Petitioners have been considered under unreserved category and no person below the rank of petitioners have been considered under unreserved category. No ground for any interference is made out”.

¶36

7. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶37

kunal/-

Rajesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

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

Sunita Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Jagat Narayan Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Department Of Industry And Ors.

Smt Samola Devi Vs the Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Ministry

Tripurari Goswami Vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Mahto Vs the Union of India through General Manager South Eastern Railway