Allahabad High Court
Lavkesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8391 of 2021
Petitioner :- Lavkesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akanksha Gaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner applied for consideration for appointment in terms of the Advertisement No. PRPB:Ek-1 (138) 2018 dated 16.11.2018 for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC. He claims that in terms of the advertisement, reservation horizontal and vertical were provided and was available to the persons domicile in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The petitioner claims that he appeared in the written examination and he was declared successful and approached for document verification. He claims that domicile certificate filed by the petitioner was not accepted as being too old, as such the petitioner produced another domicile certified issued in the year 2019, which was not accepted by the respondents merely on the ground that the said domicile certificate issued and produced of the year 2019 was subsequent to the filling of the form.
This Court had granted time to the respondents to produce the instructions, which have been produced. The same are taken on record. A perusal of the said instructions reveal that while filling online form, while filling the status of domicile of U.P., the petitioner had filled U.P., however, date of issuance of domicile certificate was not filled and was left blank by the petitioner. At the time of document verification, the petitioner produced domicile certificate dated 27.11.2019 on which it was recorded while verification that as the domicile certificate has been issued on 27.11.2019, the same shall be treated to be outside State of Uttar Pradesh. In any event, the petitioner has also filed a copy of the domicile certificate issued on 22.6.2011 by means of a copy of supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2020 (11) ADJ 222, whereas the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 5013 of 2020 (Moraj Dhwaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), judgment dated 17.9.2020.
In the case of Raj Kumar Gupta (Supra) this Court was faced with a situation similar to the situation at hand in the present writ petition, wherein the domicile certificate was subsequent to date of the application. This Court held that denial of appointment on that ground alone was bad in law and the matter was remanded with the following directions:-
"29. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2-Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, to execute the following directions:
I. The petitioner shall be given five weeks time to produce his domicile certificate dated 8.2.2018.
II. The case of the petitioner shall be processed as per law after considering the domicile certificate dated 8.2.2018 and ascertaining its authenticity."
The respondents on the other hand has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Moraj Dhwaj Singh (Supra), which considered the question of domicile certificate and this Court held that the certificate issued after the date of application could not enure to the benefit of the petitioner therein. No question of the nature referred to in the present writ petition arose and was considered by this Court while deciding the case of Moraj Dhwaj Singh (supra), whereas the case of the petitioner is that he had indeed a certificate issued in his favour on 22.6.2011, however, as he felt that the certificate was very old, he produced another certificate, this time issued in the year 2019.
It is not in doubt that the petitioner had specifically filled state of U.P. as his domicile while filling the form. I am of the firm view that the petitioner could not be denied the appointment on technical grounds and if the respondents were of the view that the certificate issued to the petitioner was subsequent to the date of filling of the application, one opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to file or produce domicile certificate prior to the date of the application.
Thus, for the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. It is specifically held that the denial of opportunity to the petitioner for the reasons as indicated in the form are bad in law and arbitrary. The petitioner shall be offered employment in terms of the eligibility, which the petitioner fulfills. The petitioner is directed to produce the copy of the domicile certificate issued in his favour on 22.6.2011 alongwith a copy of this order and if on verification the said domicile certificate is found to be correct, the petitioner shall be offered employment in terms of the advertisement and in terms of the application filed by the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 10.8.2021/S. Rahman
