Balvant Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 4644 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40496 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Balvant Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- Union Of India & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- A.B. Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I.,P.S.Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the final select list prepared by the respondents for appointment of constable in the CISF dated 20.7.2012.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Staff Selection Commission advertised vacancies for making recruitment to the post of Constable (G.D.) in the B.S.F., C.I.S.F., C.R.P.F. and S.S.B. The recruitment was published on 5.2.2011. According to the advertisement, the process of recruitment was to consist of height bar, prescribed race, physical standard test, physical efficiency test, written examination and medical examination. The written examination was scheduled to be held on 5.6.2011 and on the basis of the performance of the written examination candidates were to be shortlisted for medical examination.

As per the advertisement, the petitioner applied in the requisite format as an O.B.C. candidate along with requisite documents and testimonials in February, 2011. The petitioner passed High School Examination in the year 2001 and in the certificate therein his date of birth has been shown as 5.3.1985. He passed the Intermediate Examination in 2003 and his Graduation in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, he belongs to the O.B.C. category and also possesses the certificate of O.B.C. from the Circle Officer, Nawtan Sivan, District Bihar. An Admit Card was issued to him showing his category as O.B.C.. In pursuance of the advertisement the petitioner appeared in the physical standard test and physical efficiency test and he passed in both the tests. Thereafter, he appeared in the written examination scheduled for 5.6.2011 and passed the same and, thereafter, he was shortlisted for medical examination and was issued a fresh Admit Card for appearing in the medical examination. He appeared in the medical examination and in the result so declared his name was included along with the other candidates recommended for appointment in the C.I.S.F.. He was selected for appointment as a constable in the C.I.S.F.  for the State of Bihar in the  O.B.C. category. In the final select list the name of the petitioner has been shown at Serial No.8795.

However, it appears that subsequently some enquiry was held with regard to the candidature of the petitioner and in the list issued from the office of the Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad in the remarks column it was mentioned  that the date of birth is to be checked. He submitted a representation on 10.7.2012 before the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission but without considering the same, the final select list was issued and his recommendation for appointment has been cancelled in the chart of Final  Select List, which was issued on 20.7.2012. The submission of the petitioner  is that  as per the advertisement, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the age limit for eligibility is as prescribed in the para 4(A) is 18-23 years and it is stated that the candidate should not have been born  earlier than 2.8.1988 and not later than 31.7.1993. Para 4(B) of the advertisement, however, mentioned the Category-codes and the age relaxation as on the date of reckoning. According to the petitioner, in para 4(B) it is mentioned that age relaxation will be available as on the Closing Date (04.3.2011) beyond the Upper age limit prescribed in the Notice. The category of O.B.C. is mentioned under Code no.2 and against it in the 3rd column is mentioned as 3 years. A reference has also been made to Note-1 under para 4 (C) wherein it is stated that the closing date i.e. 4.3.2011 for receipt of applications will be treated as the 'date of reckoning' for OBC candidates.

The contention of the petitioner is that if 4.3.2011 is taken as the date of grant of age relaxation, the petitioner would be within the permissible age after granting age relaxation as his date of birth is 05.3.1985.

I have heard Sri A. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. B. Singhal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of Union of India assisted by Sri P.S. Tripathi for the Respondents.

At the outset Sri R. B. Singhal pointed out that the advertisement filed by the petitioner as Annexure-1 to the writ petition is not an authentic copy. Accordingly, this Court by its order dated 24.9.2012 directed Sri Singhal to bring on the record the correct copy of the advertisement.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed today and a copy of the advertisement actually issued by the Staff Selection Commission as available on the website has been filed as Annexure S.C.A.-2.

Sri A. B. Singh, however, states that he would not be filing any supplementary rejoinder affidavit to the supplementary counter affidavit as there is not much difference between the copy of the advertisement filed by him and that filed by learned counsel for the Union of India. Drawing the attention of the Court to the advertisement filed by the respondents, Sri A.B. Singh submitted that while in para 4(A) the age limit for eligibility is prescribed as 18-23 as on 1.8.2011 and a candidate should not have been born earlier than 2.8.1988 and not later than 31.7.1993, in para 4 (B) it is clearly mentioned that Category-codes and age relaxation available to different category of eligible candidates, for claiming Age Relaxation is as on the date of reckoning and under Code no.2 category O.B.C. has been mentioned in Column No.2 and the age relaxation permissible beyond the Upper age limit as mentioned in Column no.3 is three years.

Sir A. B. Singh stressed on the words the 'date of reckoning' as mentioned in para 4 (B) and he submitted that the date of reckoning has not been defined anywhere in the advertisement but what it means may be culled out from a reference to Note- 1 under para 4 (C), which reads as follows:-

'The closing date i.e. 4.3.2011 for receipt of applications will be treated as the date of reckoning for O.B.C. and creamy layer status of the candidate.'

He further submits that if the intention in the advertisement was to confine age relaxation only with reference to the Upper age limit as mentioned in para 4(A) it would not have been necessary for further mention of the 'date of reckoning' in para 4(B) with reference to claim for age relaxation.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Note-1, which refers to the date of reckoning is with specific reference to the obtaining of certificate of creamy layer status by OBC candidates in para 4(C) and its language and intent cannot be imported into any other paragraph of the advertisement and the closing date of 4.3.2011 in Note-1 under para 4(C) is only with reference to the last date for submitting of status of creamy layer for OBC candidates.

I have gone through the advertisement very carefully and also considered the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties.

The closing date for submission of the application has been mentioned in the advertisement at Item No.7 at page no.21 of the supplementary counter affidavit. This date is 4.3.2011 and for candidates residing abroad it is 11.3.2011.

Para 4(A) of the advertisement prescribes the age limit of a candidate as 18-23 years as on 1.8.2011 and further states that candidates should not have been born earlier than 2.8.1988 and not later than 31.7.1993. Note-1 in para 4 (A) states that the upper age limit is relaxable for S.C./ S.T./O.B.C./Ex-serviceman and other categories of persons in accordance with Government Orders on the subject.

Thereafter, para 4(B) reads as follows:-

'Category-code and age relaxation available to different category of eligible candidates, for claiming Age Relaxation as on the date of reckoning.'

Against the category O.B.C. in column-3 it is mentioned as three years. Neither para 4 (A) nor para 4 (B) defines the 'date of reckoning'. The words the 'date of reckoning' further occurs under Code No.9 ex-serviceman (unreserved and general), Code No.10 ex-serviceman (O.B.C.), and Code no.11 Ex-service- man (S.C./S.T.).

However, it is only the Note-1 to para 4 (C), which defines what the 'date of reckoning' may be and it mentions it to be the closing date for receipt of applications.

Learned counsel for the Union of India was not able to explain as to why the words 'date of reckoning' had been mentioned in para 4(B) if the Upper age limit of 2.8.1988 had already been mentioned in para 4(A). Moreover, if the age relaxation applicable to the various category codes is to be calculated with reference to the relaxation permissible beyond the upper age limit, it was not necessary to further mention the words the 'date of reckoning' in para 4(B).

Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that if 4.3.2011 is to be treated as the 'date of reckoning' for O.B.C. for grant of age relaxation under 4 (B) it would lead to an inequitable situation inasmuch as the 'date of reckoning' under the Note-1 to para 4 (C) is relatable only to O.B.C. candidates having creamy status but not to S.C. & S.T. candidates which are the other categories referred to in para 4 (B) eligible for the benefit of age relaxation.

Learned counsel for the Union of India has also referred to the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 31.5.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.31404 of 2011, Hari Narayan Awasthi vs. Union of India and others and has submitted that in that case the Court had accepted the upper age limit was 1.8.2011 and not 4.3.2011.

From a reading of the referred judgement in the case of Hari Narayan Awasthi (supra) it is seen that the petitioner in that case was a general candidate, who approached the Court for claiming the upper age limit as 4.3.2011. When the matter was taken up, the Court directed the learned counsel for the Union of India to obtain instructions and the advertisement was produced. The Court observed that from a perusal thereof it will be seen that upper age limit was 1.8.2011 and, therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner on the ground that he had concealed the upper age limit, in the advertisement which was clearly mentioned as not more than 1.8.2011.

From a reading of the judgement itself it will be clear that facts of the case have no application in the case of the present petitioner as that case was one relating to a general candidate for whom the upper age limit was 1.8.2011 and he would not be entitled to claim age relaxation whereas in the present case the petitioner is an O.B.C. candidate, who is entitled for grant of age relaxation as per prevalent Government Order.

Besides this Court in the present case is not considering as to whether the 'date of reckoning' of 4.3.2011 would be available to S.C.& S.T. candidates also nor is any such candidate before this Court claiming such relaxation. The petitioner is an O.B.C. candidate and he is claiming relaxation of age with reference to the 'date of reckoning' i.e. 4.3.2011 as defined in Note-1 to Para 4(C) and as also mentioned under para 4(B) with reference to grant of age relaxation. As already noted above, the 'date of reckoning' has not been defined anywhere and yet the term has been used in para 4 (B) for purposes of grant of age relaxation. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the definition of the words 'date of reckoning' as defined in the Note-1 under para 4 (C) of the advertisement with the date of 4.3.2011 as the 'date of reckoning' contemplated in Para 4(B) also for grant of age relaxation.

In view of the above, it is not necessary to quash the Select List dated 20.7.2012. However, respondents no.2 and 3 are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for the post of CISF granting him age relaxation of three years as admissible to O.B.C. candidates treating the 'date of reckoning' as 4.3.2011 as mentioned in the advertisement.

The writ petition is partly allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 1.10.2012

Asha