Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapas Sing vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 March, 2022
Item No.7
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
31.03.2022
Ct-24
WPA 378 of 2022
Tapas Sing
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharya
Mr. Manoj Kumar Roy
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay
Mr. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee
... for the State respondents.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya
Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharya
... for DPSC, North 24-Parganas.
Exception to the report filed by the petitioner in
Court today is taken on record.
Pursuant to an advertisement published by the
North 24-Parganas District Primary School Council for
appointment of primary school teachers in the year
2009, the petitioner applied in response to the same.
The entire recruitment process got entangled in
various litigations and the selection process got delayed.
The petitioner applied in the year 2009. He again
filled up the application form in the year 2011 pursuant
to a further notice published by the Council.
The final merit panel of the selection process was
ultimately published in the year 2021. The name of the
petitioner did not figure in the panel and he is aggrieved
by the same.
The petitioner applied under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and he was intimated that he
scored 22.39 marks. The score obtained by the last
empanelled candidate in the Scheduled Tribe category is
20.18 marks.
The petitioner submits that he is a Scheduled
Tribe candidate and he ought to get the benefit of
reservation. He has annexed the application made by
him for obtaining the tribe certificate. It appears that the
said application was made on December 22, 2009 and
the tribe certificate was ultimately issued in his favour
on August 25, 2011.
The Council has filed a report wherein it has been
mentioned that the petitioner was not entitled to the
benefit of reservation as the tribe certificate which he
relied upon was issued beyond the cut-off date as
mentioned in the notice published by the Council. The
said notice of the Council mentions that no caste/tribe
certificate issued after June 12, 2010 will be accepted by
the authority.
Fact remains that the written examination of the
selection process was due to be held on August 26, 2012
but was actually held on March 8, 2014.
Being successful in the written examination the
petitioner was asked to appear in the aptitude
test/interview on November 20, 2014 when he duly
appeared and produced all the documents in support of
his candidature.
According to the Council, as the tribe certificate
was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2011,
i.e after June 12, 2010, the same was rightly not
accepted for the purpose of providing reservation to the
petitioner.
It appears from the submissions made on behalf of
the parties that the benefit of reservation was not given
to the petitioner as the tribe certificate relied upon by
him was issued after the date mentioned in the notice of
the Council. The Council failed to appreciate that the
petitioner applied for obtaining the certificate way back
on December 22, 2009 i.e, long prior to the cut-off date
fixed by the Council, but the same was actually issued
in his favour in August 2011. The delay in issuing the
said certificate cannot be made attributable to the
petitioner.
On the date of the written test as well as the
aptitude test/interview the petitioner was in possession
of the tribe certificate. There is no reason as to why the
benefit of reservation will not be extended in favour of
the petitioner as he produced the necessary document in
support of reservation on the date of scrutiny/
verification of the documents.
The petitioner has relied upon a judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Chander Shekher &
Anr., reported in 1993 Supp. (2) SC 611 paragraph 15.
The learned advocate representing the Council on
the other hand relied upon an unreported order passed
by this Court on February 18, 2022 in WPA 7207 of
2021 ( Md. Asadul Islam v. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
The majority view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) was that in public interest
better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of
selection were not rejected.
This Court in Md. Asadul Islam(supra) was of the
opinion that as there was no document in support of
reservation, accordingly, the petitioner was treated as an
unreserved category candidate.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram
Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board & Anr., in Civil Appeal No. 1691 of 2016 arising
out of SLP(C) No. 27550 of 2012 delivered judgment on
24th February, 2016 relying upon several other
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that
the requirement for the post was for the candidate who
belongs to Scheduled Caste category. If a person belongs
to a Scheduled Caste, he is so by birth and not by
acquisition of this category because of any other event
happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by the
competent authority is to this effect only an affirmation
of fact, which is already in existence. The purpose of
such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in
the assertion that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste
category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such
candidate. It is not that a candidate did not belong to
the said category prior to a particular date or that he
acquired the status only after issuance of the certificate.
In the present case, the petitioner claims to be a
Scheduled Tribe candidate and he duly applied for
obtaining the Scheduled Tribe certificate long prior to
the cut off date that was fixed by the Council.
For reasons best known to the competent
authority, the Scheduled Tribe certificate was issued in
favour of the petitioner nearly two years after the
application was made for obtaining the same.
The petitioner did possess and produced the
Scheduled Tribe certificate on the date he appeared in
the written test and the interview. The respondent
Council ought to have taken into consideration that the
petitioner was no way responsible for the delay in
issuance of the certificate for which he applied prior to
the date fixed by the Council.
The Council has not disputed the genuineness of
the certificate relied upon by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Council ought to treat the
petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe candidate and ought to
extend the benefit of reservation to him. Moreover, it
appears that the petitioner obtained more marks than
the last empanelled candidate in the said category.
Accordingly, the Council being the respondent
Nos. 5 & 6 are directed to verify the certificate relied
upon by the petitioner and to take necessary
consequential steps by treating the petitioner as a
Scheduled Tribe candidate if the tribe certificate is found
to be genuine.
The Council shall take necessary steps in the
matter at the earliest but positively within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of
this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties after completion of all
legal formalities.
Sh (Amrita Sinha, J.)
