Allahabad High Court
Shanti Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 May, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37150
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37368 of 2018
Petitioner :- Shanti Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Abhinav Srivastava,Rahul Srivastava,Sushil Kumar Yadav,Vineet Kumar Yadav,Vivek Abhir
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard Shri Atul Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sushil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. Admittedly, in the advertisement that had been issued by the respondents dated 29.12.2015 inviting applications for the posts of Police Constable to which the petitioner was also an aspirant, Clause 6.2 of the notification provided that with respect to the candidates who were claiming reservation of Other Backward Caste (OBC), the certificate should have been issued between dates 01.04.2015 up to 24.02.2016.
3. Clause 5.3 of the said notification also provided that in case a candidate fails to produce a caste certificate in support of his claim for reservation, he would be treated as a General candidate.
4. The petitioner claims to have applied in pursuance to the said notification for the post of Police Constable on the reserved post for the OBC. Admittedly, she failed to produce the caste certificate which had been issued between the dates from 01.04.2015 up to 24.02.2016 rather the caste certificate, which has been produced by the petitioner, is subsequent to the cut-off date of 24.02.2016, has been issued on 20.07.2016. Her claim for appointment has been rejected by means of the order impugned dated 31.10.2018 placing reliance on Clause 5.3 and 6.2 of the said notification.
5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the caste certificate that had been issued to the petitioner which pertained to the said period from 01.04.2015 to 24.02.2016 had been misplaced. She had subsequently obtained her caste certificate, which was issued on 20.07.2016, pertaining to her belonging to the OBC. Once the petitioner belongs to the OBC as such, the argument is that it would have made no difference in case the certificate pertained to the period from 01.04.2015 to 24.02.2016, i.e. the period as specified in the notification or has been issued even subsequent thereto inasmuch as, the petitioner continues to remain an OBC irrespective of the date of issuance of the caste certificate and thus, the respondents have patently erred in law by considering the claim of the petitioner as a General Category candidate in terms of the said notification and not appointing her, even though she meets the cut-off for OBC category as specified in pursuance to the result as issued subsequent to the said notification.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel argues that once Clauses 6.2 & 5.2 of the notification specifies that all the candidates are required to have caste certificate, so far as it pertains to the OBC, for the aforesaid period, consequently, there cannot be any occasion of considering the candidates who have obtained a caste certificate subsequently and thus, the respondents have strictly adhered to the terms and conditions of the said advertisement and have considered the petitioner as a General Category candidate as she had failed to produce her caste certificate in support of her belonging to OBC, which certificate should have adhered to the dates as specified in the said advertisement.
7. Responding to that, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No.12230 of 2023 decided on 02.01.2024 to contend that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court has held that where a candidate commits a trivial error which does not play any part in the selection process, as such, the selecting authority cannot be justified in making a mountain out of molehill and should consider the said candidate for appointment.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that admittedly, the petitioner belongs to OBC who had applied for the post of constable in terms of the notification dated 29.12.2015. Clause 6.2 of the said notification requires a caste certificate in support of the OBC to have been issued between the dates from 01.04.2015 to 24.02.2016. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having a caste certificate that had been issued during the said period rather the caste certificate, which was produced by her, was of 20th July, 2016 i.e. issued subsequent to the said date. Considering this, the respondents have treated the petitioner as a General Category candidate and have found that the petitioner has failed to clear the merit / cut-off as required for the General Category candidate and consequently, have rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment.
9. The sheet anchor of the claim of the petitioner is the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that in case of trivial errors, the same ought to be ignored.
10. In the instant case, it cannot be said that there has been a trivial error inasmuch as, Clause 6.2 of the said notification specifically required a candidate, who was claiming the benefit of OBC reservation, to have a certificate issued during a certain period. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to produce the certificate that had been issued with respect to the said period as specified in the said advertisement. Admittedly, the certificate of the petitioner is of a subsequent date i.e. of 20th July, 2016. Thus, the respondents, acting strictly in terms and conditions of the said notification, have treated the petitioner as a General Category candidate and as she has failed to meet the merit / cut-off which was 418.77 vis-a-vis the petitioner's merit of 412.36 consequently, her claim for appointment has been rejected.
11. It cannot be said those was a trivial error on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as, the conditions of the advertisement that has been issued inviting applications were binding on both the Commission as well as the candidates. Once the advertisement mentioned particular terms and conditions then, in case, the appointment is made in disregard of the same, it would not be a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned i.e. the petitioner but aggrieved would be all those who did not have the caste certificate issued during the aforesaid period and did not apply for the said post because of non-possession of the caste certificate and thus, any interference in the instant matter would amount to a fraud on the public. In this regard, it would be apt to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Collector and Chairman Viziangaram (Social Welfare) Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 (3) SCC 655 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact."
(emphasis by Court)
12. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.5.2024
S. Shivhare
