Sachin S/O Rameshrao Girnale vs Union Of India Through (Ministry ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7918 Bom

   wp2296.17                                                                    1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                    WRIT  PETITION NO.  2296   OF  2017

  Sachin s/o Rameshrao Girnale
  aged about 25 years, 
  occupation - Nil, r/o at 
  Kolwai, Post Bhandegaon,
  Tq. Darwa, District - Yavatmal.              ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. Union of India
     through its (Ministry of Home
     Affairs), Directorate General,
     CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi
     Road, New Delhi 110 003.

  2. Regional Director (WR),
     Staff Selection Commission,
     1st Floor, South Wing,
     Pratishtha Bhawan, 
     101, M.K. Road, Mumbai,
     Maharashtra 400 020.

  3. Deputy Inspector General of
     Police, Central Reserve Police
     Force, the DIGP Group Centre,
     Talegaon, Dabhade, 
     Pune 410 507.                             ...   RESPONDENTS


  Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner.
  Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the respondents.
                    .....

                               CORAM :     B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                           MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

OCTOBER 09, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Heard finally with the consent of Shri S.A. Mohta,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.A. Chaudhari,

learned counsel for the respondents, by issuing Rule and

making it returnable forthwith.

2. This petitioner belonging to Other Backward Class

(OBC) category participated in selection process in terms of

advertisement published in January 2015. Clause 4(C)

expected him to give caste certificate in proforma prescribed by

Union of India and in no other format. The said clause also

clarifies that such certificate should have been obtained within

three years before the closing date i.e. 23.02.2015. It also

clarified that it had decided to accept OBC certificate, in the

prescribed format, issued after the closing date for receipt of

application but issued on or before the date of the document

verification. It is not in dispute that the documents are to be

verified at the time of Detailed Medical Examination (DME)

which in this matter was conducted on 12.05.2016.

3. The petitioner before this Court has two caste

certificates. First one is dated 26.07.2007 and later is dated

04.10.2014. Those certificates are identical but the

nomenclature of format is different. The certificate dated

26.07.2007 being more than three years old, is not very

relevant. The later certificate is dated 04.10.2014. It is issued

by the Competent Authority and the format thereof is prevalent

in the State of Maharashtra, as per rules framed under the

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified

Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward

Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance

& Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001).

On 12.05.2016, the petitioner learnt that this format was not,

as required by the Union of India, he, therefore, assured to

supply necessary certificate in prescribed format by 01.06.2016.

However, he was declared unsuccessful in Medical examination

and, therefore, he did not comply with his undertaking. He

was declared unsuccessful in medical examination because of

tatoo marks and in Review Medical Examination, he has been

cleared. The review Medical examination has been conducted

on 24.08.2016. Before that i.e. on 20.08.2016, he got the

necessary caste certificate in the format prescribed by the Union

of India.

4. In this situation, on 02.08.2017, we called upon the

respondents to produce original documents relating to selection

process of the petitioner. Today, the original documents were

made available for perusal of this Court.

5. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that the instructions in the advertisement are very clear

and still the petitioner did not submit the caste certificate in

proforma/ format prescribed by the Union of India. He points

out that said format also contains a declaration that the holder

of caste certificate does not belong to creamy layer. This

certification or clause is missing in the format used by the

petitioner or then prescribed by the State Government. He

points out that though the petitioner was aware of mandatory

nature, he deliberately did not supply it. On 12.05.2016, one

more chance was given to him but again he did not produce

that certificate in prescribed format. He, therefore, requests

this Court to dismiss the present petition.

6. According to Shri Mohta, learned counsel, the

format in which certificate is issued, is prescribed by the State

Government under a valid law and, therefore, that format could

not have been rejected. He submits that the respondents

nowhere objected to absence of non creamy layer certificate

and the case of the petitioner has been processed as if he

belongs to OBC. He contends that in unfortunate situation, the

petitioner was declared unsuccessful in DME and hence the

petitioner lost all his hopes. However, when he got intimation

of Review Medical Test, he obtained necessary certificate and

then attempted to produce it at the time of Review Medical

Test.

7. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that the

certificates or any other papers submitted by the petitioner

along with his application for employment, do not contain any

document throwing light on his financial status and, therefore,

his non creamy layer position.

8. We need not delve in to this controversy. The

material variance between the format prescribed by the Union

of India and format of the State Government is only in relation

to status or position of a person as belonging to creamy layer.

The format prescribed by the Union of India specifically

warrants a certificate from the caste certificate issuing authority

that the holder thereof does not belong to creamy layer.

9. The position that a person, in order to qualify for

benefits as OBC, must not belong to creamy layer, is not in

dispute. However, here, the candidature of the petitioner was

not turned down on the ground that he does not belong to non

creamy layer. On 12.05.2016, he was given time to produce

certificate in requisite format. However, there because of

objection to tatoo mark, he was found not eligible. It appears

that in two or three such matters, this Bench at Nagpur and at

Bombay Bench, have found this disqualification due to tatoo

marks not proper. Admittedly, a Review Medical Examination

test was scheduled and the petitioner procurred caste certificate

in format. That format declares that the petitioner belongs to

OBC community and is also a non creamy layer candidate.

10. In this situation, taking overall view of the matter,

we are inclined to give petitioner one opportunity. We direct

the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner

and other candidates similarly situated, if they are available

and are interested, only if position has not become irreversible.

However, the necessary decision in this respect shall be taken

within 10 weeks from today. The necessary intimation thereof

shall be given to the petitioner by R.P.A.D. on his address

registered with the respondents.

11. At this stage, it is informed to the Court that the

certificate in prescribed format was returned back to the

petitioner on 24.08.2016 only. We, therefore, direct the

petitioner to supply that certificate to respondent No. 3 by

personally visiting its office at Pune on any working day during

office hours along with a copy of this order within next three

weeks. The period of ten weeks shall begin to run thereafter.

12. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs.

           JUDGE                                                   JUDGE
                                           ******

  *GS.