Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Prasad vs Union Of India And 2 Ors. on 28 July, 2023
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152165
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15809 of 2015
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Avinash Chandra Srivastav,Pramod Kumar Singh,S.C.,S.K.Yadav,Santosh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. Nil of 2015
Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press this application. Let it be numbered by the office.
It is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
Order on writ petition.
A Rejoinder affidavit has been filed in Court today. It is taken on record.
Parties have exchanged affidavits.
Admit.
Heard forthwith.
Heard Mr. Onkar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for all the respondents.
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (G.D.) in C.R.P.F. and did so under the Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.) quota. It appears that he successively passed the physical efficiency test and was called for written examination. He was allotted Roll No. 3003522449 in the written examination that was held on 12.05.2013 at Allahabad. The petitioner was successful in the written examination. The petitioner was called for a medical examination with all documents for verification. The petitioner appeared for his medical examination on 17.01.2014 at the CISF 5th RB Board No. 2, Bn Ghaziabad. He carried along with him his original testimonials related to education and the O.B.C. Caste Certificate, issued on 26.06.2008.
The petitioner's case is that when the final list was declared, he had obtained 76 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in Uttar Pradesh under the O.B.C. category had scored 75 marks in the CRPF, 81 in the BSF, 83 in the CISF and 76 in the Assam Rifles. The petitioner's name does not figure in the select list. He approached the office of the Regional Director, (CR) Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad and submitted a representation dated 04.07.2014.
The petitioner asserts that being an O.B.C. quota candidate, upon scoring 76 marks in the written examination, he is entitled to be selected in the CRPF. The representation that the petitioner had submitted, were ordered to be decided by this Court on an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46380 of 2014, decided on 24.09.2014, directing the Regional Director, (CR) Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad to decide his representation. The petitioner's representation was rejected vide impugned order dated 22.10.2014.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present petition.
The crux of the matter in this case is that the respondents say, that according to the conditions in the advertisement, the O.B.C. Certificate had to be within three years of the prescribed cut off date, that is to say 11.01.2013, and in the petitioner's case the O.B.C. Certificate that he produced was one dated 24.06.2008. The petitioner was, therefore, settled as a general category candidate, where the cut off for selection in the CRPF and Assam Rifles was 78 marks.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Caste Certificate once issued, would not undergo any change, as the caste does not change; it relates to one's birth. He submits that the condition imposed in the advertisement for the Caste Certificate to be within a particular period of time from the cut off date, is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has refuted the said submission and says that the order has been passed in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, of which the petitioner was fully aware.
Learned Counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench in Arvind Kumar Yadav v. U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board and others, 2016 SCC OnLine All 4196, decided on 05.12.2016, where it has been held:
"In our opinion, the said certificate has been issued much beyond the last date of submission of the application as was prescribed under the terms and condition of advertisement noticed above, therefore, is of no consequence.
So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Another [Civil Appeal No.1691 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 27550 of 2012)] is concerned, we may only notice that the Apex Court judgment was not considering a case where the terms and conditions in the matter of certificate, being submitted in prescribed proforma for claiming the benefit of OBC category, had been provided for under the advertisement itself. The terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement are binding upon all the appellants and have to be applied uniformly, learned Single Judge is correct in recording that the said judgment was clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a little difference in the facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a judgment (Reference Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) SCC, 111, which has recently been followed in the case of Rajveer Singh vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal, reported in AIR 2003 SCW 5817).
This Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & another, (2016) 4 SCC 754 but as would be noticed, this case has already been distinguished by the Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Kumar Yadav (supra).
The question is what principle would apply in this case. Here the advertisement clearly mentioned vide paragraph no. 4(C) that candidates claiming reservation under the O.B.C. category ought to produce a certificate, that is issued within three years of the cut off date, which was 11.01.2013. The purpose of introducing this kind of a condition is that the status of O.B.C. could be lost on the principle of creamy layer, if the circumstances of the family change. Even otherwise, once the advertisement had clearly indicated that in order to claim benefit of reservation under the O.B.C. category, the certificate had to be with reference to a particular time period reckoned from a specified date, it was for the petitioner to secure that certificate and produce it at the time of verification.
In the circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned. This petition fails and, is, dismissed. Costs Easy.
Order Date :- 28.7.2023
Prashant D.
