Disposed

Ms Priyanka Yadav v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2015CW/6076/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by a teacher applicant. The Court held that an OBC caste certificate expired by more than three years prior to the application date was invalid. The petitioner was not allowed a fresh certificate issued after the deadline. However, she was permitted to be considered and appointed if she secures a merit position in the General (Female) category. The writ p

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner's candidature in the OBC category was not allowed, but she can be considered for appointment in the General Female category if she secures a merit posit

Ms Priyanka Yadav Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

CWP – 6076/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6076/2015

¶5

(Ms.Priyanka Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶6

Date of Order : 06^th October, 2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.Aniket Vyas for Mr.S.K.Gupta, AAG.

¶9

By the Court:

¶10

It is a case where in pursuance to the

¶11

advertisement dated 04th September, 2013 for the post of Teacher Gr.III, the petitioner applied for the post. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the selection test. She secured merit position in the category of OBC (Female). She was thus called for submission of original documents. It was found that caste certificate submitted by the petitioner is old by more than three years from the date of submission of application form. In view of the above, it was not taken into consideration. It was as per the condition mentioned in the advertisement. The validity of the certificate is only of one year to find out whether the candidate is falling in the creamylayer on or before last date of submission of application form. Para No.8(i)(c) of the advertisement is quoted hereunder for ready reference :

CWP – 6076/2015

“8. आर्षण

(i).....................

¶16

(अ)....................

¶17

(ब).....................

¶18

(स) ि्वमीलेयर म� नहीं होने संबंिधत ्ऺमाण प्ऴ

¶19

एक वषर् के िलए मा�य होगा। एक बार ि्वमीलेयर म� नहीं होने का ्ऺमाण प्ऴ जारी होने के उपरा�त अगर ाथर् आगामी वषर् म� भी

¶20

ि्वमीलेयर म� नहीं है तो ऐसी ि�थित म� उससे स�यािपत शपथ प्ऴ लेकर पूवर् म� जारी ्ऺमाण प्ऴ को ही मान िलया जावे, ऐसा अिधकतम 3 वषर् तक िकया जा सकता है अथार्त् ि्वमीलेयर म� नहीं होने बाबत जारी ओबीसी माण प्ऴ को जारी होने की ितथी से 3 वषर् (अिधकतम) तक मा�यता दी जा सकती है।"

¶21

The para, quoted above, makes it clear that the caste certificate showing that the candidate is not falling in the creamy-layer would be valid for a period of one year, however, validity can be extended to the maximum period of three years, if an affidavit is submitted to certify the aforesaid but certificate would not be considered if issued prior to three years. The validity of certificate is thus for a maximum period of three years. The petitioner submitted caste certificate dated 15^th March, 2010, thus as on the date of advertisement and last date for submission of application form, i.e., 04^th

¶22

CWP – 6076/2015

¶23

¶24

September, 2013, it was older by more than three years. In the light of the condition quoted above, the respondents refused to give sanctity to the certificate of creamy-layor older by more than three years. Para No.17(C) of the advertisement is also quoted hereunder for ready reference :

¶25

“17. ्ऺमाण प्ऴो का स�यापन :- (अ)...................... (ब).......................

¶26

( स) अ. जा. / अ. ज. जा. / अ. िप. व. / िव. िव. व. / िन: श्व जन का ाि� माण प्ऴ ऑनलाईन ए�लीकेशन फामर् म� की अि�तम िदनांक के पूवर् का जारी होना चािहए, अ�यथा अि�तम िदनांक के बाद जारी हुये माण प्ऴ� के अ�यिथर्य� को वगर् िवशेष का लाभ िव्ञािपत पद� हेतु देय नहीं होगा और ना ही इस संबंध म� िकसी ाथर्ना प्ऴ पर िवचार िकया जावेगा। राज�थान रा�य के िपछडा वगर्/ िवशेष िपछडा वगर् के ीिमलेयर के अ�यिथर्य� को

¶27

आर्षण का लाभ देय नहीं है। अत: ऐसे अ�यिथर्य� को ऑनलाईन आवेदन प्ऴ पर सामा�य अ�यथर् के �प म� आवेदन करना होगा। िपछडा वगर्/ िवशेष िपछडा वगर् का्ऺ

¶28

माण प्ऴ जो िनयमानुसार िपता/ माता की आय के आधार पर स्षम अिधकारी ारा िनधार्िरत प्ऴ �तुत करना होगा। िपछडा वगर्/ िवशेष िपछडा वगर् की िववािहत मिहला अ�यथर् को िनयमानुसार िपता/ माता की आय के आधार पर जारी जाित माण प्ऴ िव�तृत आवेदन प्ऴ के

¶29

CWP – 6076/2015

¶30

¶31

साथ �तुत करना आव�यक है, अ�यथा िनधार्िरत शु�क के अभाव म� ऐसे आवेदन प्ऴ अ�वीकृत कर िदया जावेगा। पित के आय के आधार पर जारी जाित माण प्ऴ मा�य नहीं होगा।"

¶32

As per the para, quoted above, the caste certificate is to be issued prior to the last date of submission of application form.

¶33

In the instant case, the petitioner has submitted another certificate subsequently issued on 06^th August, 2014 to show that she is not falling in the category of creamy-layer. The aforesaid certificate was issued much subsequent to the last date of submission of application form and was not admissible as per para No.17(C) of the advertisement.

¶34

In the light of the conditions given in the advertisement, if the caste certificate of the petitioner has not been considered, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents. This Court cannot give benefit of default of a candidate, who had submitted caste certificate in ignorance of the terms of the advertisement. It is moreso when it was not a caste certificate simplicitor but was also to find about creamylayer. The status about creamy-layer needs latest position. If misplaced sympathy is shown by this Court in favour of the petitioner, it would be detriment to those, who were also having

¶35

CWP – 6076/2015

¶36

¶37

similar caste certificate, i.e., older by more than three years but did not submit in adherence of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. It shall deprive them to get the similar benefits whereas the defaulter, like the petitioner, would get benefit of her negligence. It would thus violate the Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India which provides for parity. The similarly situate can be given different treatment.

¶38

Looking to the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality

¶39

in the action of the respondents for not considering the candidature of the petitioner in OBC category. The consideration of the candidature of the petitioner would and can, however, be maintained in the category of Female and if she finds position in the merit then would be entitled to the appointment subject to verification of documents and other conditions.

¶40

With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of so as the stay application.

¶41

(M.N. BHANDARI),J.

¶42

S/No.9 Preeti, PA

¶43

All cor r ect ion s m ade in t h e j u dgm en t / or d er h ave been in cor p or at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶44

Pr eet i Asopa P.A.

Ms Priyanka Yadav v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Priyanka Yadav v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Smt Sumitra Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Syed Sharji Hussain Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Shishu Pal Singh Vs Shri Mukesh Sharma and Others

Anil Kumar Vs State Education Departmentors

Sawai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp