Allahabad High Court
Ajit Yadav vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5874 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ajit Yadav
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hridaya Narain Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Krishna Deo Rai
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Shri. Hridaya Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Krishna Deo Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 passed by respondent no.5/Commandant (pers-II), S.S.B., East Block-V, R.K.Puram, New Delhi (Annexure No.9 to this writ petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable (General Duty) in Sashtra Seema Bal (S.S.B.).
(iii) issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) award costs to the petition in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in pursuance of an advertisement for selection and appointment of Constable in CAPFS/NIA/SSF Rifleman in Assam Rifle Examination, 2018. Petitioner became successful in the written examination and an E-Admit Card was issued to him for physical efficiency test. He successfully passed the said test and a certificate in this regard was issued by the respondent authorities on 14.8.2019 and thereafter appointment letter was issued on 16.3.2021.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that a letter dated 28.1.2020 was sent to the petitioner to produce a caste certificate in the prescribed format and the said document was required to be produced before 5.2.2020.
It is admitted case that the petitioner has not produced the caste certificate in the prescribed format and he produced caste certificate on 15.6.2021 issued by the Government of West Bengal which was admittedly not in the prescribed format and thereafter by a letter dated 25.6.2021, time was further extended upto 9.9.2021 with the condition that no further request for extension will be entertained as "An offer of appointment lapse automatically after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of the original offer of appointment".
Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that petitioner has not filed any caste certificate in the prescribed format and thereafter by impugned order dated 21.2.2022, appointment letter issued to the petitioner was cancelled as he has failed to submit the caste certificate in prescribed format. He further submits that in the advertisement there was no condition to submit the caste certificate in any prescribed format, therefore, to insist the petitioner to submit caste certificate in prescribed format is erroneous and the caste certificate issued in the year 2013 as well as the caste certificate issued by the government of West Bengal could be considered to a valid caste certificate, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and the same be set-aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the advertisement it has been mentioned that caste certificate has to be submitted as per prescribed format which was admittedly not submitted though time was granted upto 9.9.2021. In the communication dated 28.1.2020, a copy of prescribed format was also send.
A Full Bench of this Court in Gaurav Sharma and Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2017 (5) ADJ 494 has considered the following questions:
" A. Whether the candidature of an OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the ground of the caste certificate having been submitted after the last date for submission of applications?
B. Whether the decision in Arvind Kumar Yadav lays down and represents the correct position in law ?
C. Whether there exists any irreconcilable difference or repugnancy between the norms fixed by the Union and State Governments with regard to certification of creamy layer? If not, its effect."
After considering the various judgments and rival submissions, question no.1 was answered in negative and the Full Bench held that the OBC candidate is not exempted from the rigours of a cut off or last date prescribed in an advertisement or recruitment notice.
In the present case, admittedly respondents have granted sufficient time to the petitioner to submit the caste certificate in the prescribed format and for that time was extended till 9.9.2021, though the first notice was sent to the petitioner in January, 2020, therefore, more than twenty months were granted to the petitioner to submit his caste certificate in prescribed format, but the petitioner failed to do so.
Petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the recruitment process and failed to submit the caste certificate in the prescribed format, therefore, in view of Gaurav Sharma (supra) I do not find any error in the impugned order.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
SB
