Km. Priya vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2152 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Judgment Reserved on 22.4.2022
 
Delivered on 6.5.2022
 
Court No. - 34
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7862 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Km. Priya
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Surendra Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4530 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Km. Rashi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Ashok Malaviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Shri. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State in leading Writ Petition No.7862 of 2020 and Shri. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. V.B. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State in Writ Petition No.4530 of 2020 and perused the records.

2. Both the writ petitions having similar controversy, therefore, it is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that it can be decided by a common judgment.

3. The petitioners have participated in the recruitment process of Civil Police Uttar Pradesh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that candidature of the petitioners was rejected only on the ground that they submitted their domicile certificates after the application forms were submitted.

5. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ-A No.11039 of 2018, Vipin Kumar Maurya & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, decided on 16.1.2019, wherein it was held that the female candidates who have been ousted on account of denial of benefit of horizontal reservation to them due to the fact that they are original residents of other parts of the country, cannot be sustained and the impugned action to that extent were set aside.

6. In the present case, the advertisement for recruitment of Civil Police Uttar Pradesh Arms Constabulary Direct Recruitment was issued on 16.11.2018 and the last date for submitting the application form was 8.12.2018.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the forms submitted by the petitioners for participating in the recruitment process which are annexed to counter affidavit filed in the respective writ petitions. He also pointed out that the columns regarding details of domicile certificates were left blank. Even the column for permanent address was kept blank in the application form submitted by the petitioners and the domicile certificates submitted by the petitioners were dated 26.3.2019 and 13.2.2019. The earlier domicile certificates issued to the petitioners were of the year 2013 which could not be accepted as it was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the domicile certificate should be of the year 2018 and it should be issued before the last date of submitting the application forms. It is relevant to note that none of the condition of advertisement are under challenge before this Court.

8. From perusal of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement dated 16.11.2018, it is absolutely clear that the domicile certificate issued in the year 2018, was to be submitted before the last date of submission of forms and in the present case admittedly this condition was not fulfilled. It is also not in dispute that the requisite steps for disclosing the details of domicile certificate in the application form were kept blank and the certificates so submitted by the petitioners were issued in the year 2019, which could not be accepted in view of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement which are not under challenge before this Court.

9. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Maurya (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts.

10. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2017 (5) ADJ 494, after considering various judgments of this Court as well of the Supreme Court answered the referred questions in negative and held that an OBC candidate is not exempted from the rigours of a cut off or last date prescribed in an advertisement or recruitment notice. Therefore, this ratio is equally applicable in present case and the petitioners are also not exempted from the rigours of a cut off or the last date prescribed in submitting the domicile certificate.

Relevant portion of the judgment is mentioned hereinafter:

"A perusal of the provisions made by the Union Government indicates that an OBC candidate who was a son or a daughter of a person having a gross annual income of Rs.4.5 lakhs or above or possessing wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years would fall within the creamy layer and to such a candidate the rule of exclusion became applicable. However, the ceiling as fixed under the Government Order dated 22 October 2008 in respect of OBC candidates was placed at Rs.5 lakhs or more. The prescription in respect of the Wealth Tax Act remained the same. The 2014 Amendment to Schedule-I further increased this ceiling by prescribing that in order to fall within the creamy layer, it would have to be established by a person that in the last three consecutive years he or his parents had an income of Rs. 8 lakhs or more coupled with the condition of the person not being in possession of wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed under the Wealth Tax Act. The Wealth Tax Act, it is not disputed, is a Central legislation and therefore, would uniformly apply. However, the ceiling limits for income in the last three years are different under the stipulations prescribed by the Union and State Governments. There is, however, evidently no inherent repugnancy in the two norms. While the Central Government prescribes the limit to be Rs.4.5 lakhs or more, the State enactment places the ceiling at Rs. 8 lakhs or more. Based solely upon the rival criteria as prescribed by the Union and State Governments, it is clear that an OBC candidate who does not fall foul of the limits prescribed by the Union Government would also not stand disqualified under the standards fixed by the State. There is therefore, no irreconcilable difference or repugnancy between the two standards. The issue which however, remains to be answered is the impact of such a finding. While it is true that an OBC candidate even if he produces a certificate which evidences that he does not stand excluded from the benefits of reservation in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 14 October 2008, the issue would still remain as to whether he is an OBC as classified and identified by the State of U.P. To recapitulate, we note that although the certificate initially submitted by the OBC candidates before us did not stand excluded by virtue of the standards fixed in the Office Memorandum dated 14 October 2008, the certificate did not evidence them belonging to an OBC as identified in the State of U.P. For the purposes of seeking the benefit of reservation, it is imperative for a candidate to establish that he belongs to the OBC as recognised and identified by the State concerned and further that he/she does not fall within the field of exclusion. We have already noted that both conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. Therefore, in our considered view, even though there is no repugnancy between the financial criteria fixed by the Union and State Governments for the purposes of identification of a creamy layer, the same on its own would have no favourable impact upon the candidature of the applicant in the absence of a certificate also evidencing and identifying him as belonging to the OBC as recognised and identified by the concerned State.

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. "

11. Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (supra), was also followed in Special Appeal Defective No.530 of 2018, State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow & Ors Vs. Ankit Verma, decided on 15.5.2019, wherein it has been held that the caste certificate submitted after the cut off date, cannot be accepted.

12. In view of the above discussion on facts as well as on law, the petitioners who have not submitted their domicile certificates issued in the year 2018 before the last date of submission of recruitment forms that the domicile certificates submitted were of the year 2019 and also taking note that the conditions of the advertisements are not under challenge, therefore, the present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment passed in the case of Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (supra), therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioners.

13. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are dismissed.

Order Date:-6.5.2022

SB