Bombay High Court
Manoj Kumar Prasad And 5 Ors vs Bank Of India And Anr on 22 February, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
5.152.19-wp.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Basavraj G.
Basavraj Patil
G. Patil Date:
2021.02.23
11:34:04 WRIT PETITION NO.152/2019
+0530
Manoj Kumar Prasad & Ors ..... Petitioners
Vs.
Bank of India & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. Kartikeya Bahadur i/b. Kranti L.C. for the Petitioners
Mr. Atul Singh for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: K.K.TATED &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2021
P.C.
1 Heard. None appeared for Respondent No.1-Bank. The
learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that let the
matter be adjourned by two weeks so that he can inform
Respondent No.1 about the next date, in writing.
2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioner challenges the condition of
advertisement issued by Respondent No.1 dated 01.04.2018
for recruitment of an Officer as mentioned in the said
advertisement. He submits that in clause 6 of the Selection
Process, a condition was imposed by Respondent no.1 that
OBC certificating containing Non-Creamy layer should be
issued during the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. He
submits that before issuing appointment letters, he had
Basavraj G. Patil 1/3
5.152.19-wp.odt
submitted his OBC certificate to Respondent No.1. In spite of
that Respondent No.1 rejected his Application only on the
ground that the said certificate should be issued during the
period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.
3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a
condition imposed by Respondent No.1 for submitting his
OBC certificate is contrary to the judgment of the apex Court
in the matter of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. 2016 4
SCC 754. He relies on para 2 and 14 of the said judgment,
which read thus:
2. The important question of law to be decided in
these appeals is whether a candidate who appears in
an examination under the O.B.C. category and submits
the certificate after the last date mentioned in the
advertisement is eligible for selection to the post
under the O.B.C. category or not.
14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in
not considering the decision rendered in the case of
Pushpa (supra). In that case, the learned single Judge
of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners
therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate
before the provisional selection list was published to
claim the benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category.
The learned single judge correctly examined the
entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the
backdrop of the object of reservations made to the
reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid
down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India[4] as well as
Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors.[5] The
learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra)
also considered another judgment of Delhi High Court,
in the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra), wherein the Delhi
High Court had already taken the view that the
Basavraj G. Patil 2/3
5.152.19-wp.odt
candidature of those candidates who belonged to the
S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected simply on
account of the late submission of caste certificate.
4 As none appeared for Respondent No.1, the following
order is passed:
a. The Petitioner to serve Respondent No.1, again,
by private notice by hand delivery stating that as none
appeared for them today, the matter is posted for
hearing on 08.03.2021 and file an Affidavit of Service
to that effect, on or before the next date date.
b. S.O. to .08.03.2021.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 3/3
