Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Kumar And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 26.07.2022
Delivered on 03.08.2022
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4707 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioners have participated in the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police and Platoon Commander of PAC pursuant to Advertisement dated 19.05.2011.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners applied under Other Backward Class category and submitted their caste certificate and they got more marks than the last cut off in Other Backward Class category. However, they were not selected on the ground that their caste certificate was not in the prescribed proforma, annexed alongwith advertisement. In these circumstances petitioners approached this Court earlier by filing Writ-A No. 18304 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2019 directing respondents to consider grievance of petitioners.
3. In view of above petitioners submitted individual representations and by means of impugned order dated 09.01.2020 their candidature was not considered, as their caste certificate was not in prescribed proforma and they got lesser marks than the cut off. In these circumstances petitioners filed present writ petition challenging order dated 09.01.2020.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that controversy of this recruitment process was reached upto Supreme Court and vide order dated 14.08.2018 it has disposed of transferred cases with following observation:
"In such circumstances, we are of the view that such candidates, in case they produce the original certificate, as required by the Selection Board regarding their caste or domicile within three weeks from today before the Recruitment Board, they shall be entitled to participate in the selection process. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that this order is limited only to those candidates whoa re before this Court or before the High Court as on date."
5. Learned counsel for petitioners heavily relied on aforesaid observation that petitioners have submitted the caste certificate in prescribed proforma on a later date, therefore, the same may be considered for the purpose of recruitment for the year 2011.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents submits that it was essential condition specifically prescribed in the advertisement that all the certificates have to be in prescribed proforma annexed alongwith advertisement and admittedly petitioners have not submitted their caste certificate in the prescribed proforma and the later caste certificate which they submitted are of the year 2017, could not be accepted.
7. Before coming into merit of the case it is relevant to mention para 28 of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gaurav Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017(5) ADJ 494, as under:
"28. We accordingly answer Question No. 1 in the negative and hold that an OBC candidate is not exempt from the rigours of a cut off or last date prescribed in an advertisement or recruitment notice. We further declare that Arvind Kumar Yadav correctly articulates the law on the issue and overrule Pravesh Kumar and Shubham Gupta. Insofar as Question No. 3 is concerned, we hold that although there is no repugnancy in the norms fixed by the Union and State Government, the same would have no favourable impact upon the eligibility of a candidate unless he also furnishes a certificate evidencing him as belonging to the OBC category as recognised and identified by the State." (Emphasis added)
8. It is admitted case of petitioners that despite it was specifically mentioned in advertisement that certificate ought to be in prescribed proforma annexed alongwith advertisement, they have not submitted their caste certificate in the said prescribed proforma, therefore, rejection of their candidature cannot be faulted.
9. The other submission of petitioners is based on the observation of Supreme Court, referred above. However, it cannot be inferred that Supreme Court has permitted to place fresh caste certificate rather the observation was limited to the extent that candidates were permitted to submit genuine document and not the certificate issued belatedly. Petitioners are trying to get benefit of a caste certificate issued in the year 2017 for the purpose of recruitment process of the year 2011. As held in Gaurav Sharma (supra) as the petitioners were failed to submit caste certificate in prescribed proforma before the cut off date, therefore, petitioners' candidature cannot be considered for selection.
10. At this stage, the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Pankaj Kumar, (2022) 1 SCC 335 is also relevant wherein it is held that, "a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a timeline and the next recruitment process will also get affected since determination of the number of vacancies for the next process will keep fluctuating."
11. In view of above, since the recruitment process was of the year 2011, no relief can be granted in the year 2022, i.e., after more than a decade.
12. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 03.08.2022
AK
