Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dharamdeo Ray vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 July, 2021
02.07.2021
Sl. No.4
srm
W.P.A. No. 5915 of 2021
Dharamdeo Ray
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Debasish Kundu
...for the Petitioner.
Ms. Chandreyi Alam,
Ms. Runu Mukherjee
...for the Union of India.
Exception to the report in the form of affidavit filed by
the petitioner is taken on record.
The writ petitioner participated in the process of
recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF
and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination 2018. He
secured 62.47 marks as certified by the Staff Selection
Commission. Due to mismatch in the domicile status of the
petitioner, the petitioner was not granted appointment.
Aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court. A direction
was given by this Court upon the respondents to file a report
indicating why the petitioner could not qualify for
appointment.
Report has been filed in the form of an affidavit. It
appears from the report that the petitioner had mentioned his
place domicile as Hooghly in the application, whereas, at the
time of verification of documents, it was seen that the domicile
certificate given by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalyani
indicated that the petitioner was a domicile of the district of
Nadia. Due to such mismatch, the appointment could not be
given to the petitioner. A list of eight other candidates who
have been rejected on the same ground has also been annexed
to the report.
Exception to the report has been filed and the petitioner
has stated that the mismatch was corrected before the
verification of documents. Such contention is seriously
objected to by the respondents and it is stated that the Staff
Selection Commission, did not have any authority to correct
any mistake which was committed by the petitioner in his
application.
Mr. Kundu relies on a decision of the Kerala High Court
in support of his contention that the Kerala High Court had
directed that in a nation wide selection process such type of
minor errors should be condoned and should not be a ground
for rejection of the appointment.
Having considered paragraph 11 of the said judgment, it
appears that the Kerala High Court was of the opinion that if
the respondents had condoned such error or mistake or
mismatch with regard to domicile in case of similarly situated
candidates, in that case, those candidates who had been
rejected on the ground of mismatch, should be considered for
appointment.
On the query of the Court, as to whether there were
instances of persons who had been accepted for appointment
even though there was a mismatch in their documents, Mr.
Kundu submits that he has instruction that some persons were
given appointment in spite of such mismatch.
Ms. Alam, learned Advocate for the respondents, refutes
such contention and submits that the report filed in Court
would clarify that at least eight candidates similarly situated
were rejected on the same ground. Ms. Alam further submits
that it is a condition of appointment that these persons are
appointed against vacancies earmarked for particular districts
and that is why the domicile of the persons was relevant for
consideration of appointment against vacancies in particular
districts.
However, in my opinion, one last chance should be
given to the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit in
support of his contention that there were other persons who
have been selected by the respondents despite there being a
mismatch in the documents with regard to declaration of the
domicile status.
Let such supplementary affidavit be filed within a
period of two weeks. Affidavit-in-opposition to the
supplementary affidavit should be filed by the respondent
No.3 within a period of two weeks thereafter.
List this matter on August 9, 2021 before the appropriate
Bench.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
