Sushma Dhurway vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 595 Chatt

                                              1




                                                                                  NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 3212 of 2021

     Sushma Dhurway D/o Late Bishram Dhurway Aged About 36 Years R/o
     Gandhi Chowk, Jaiswal Gali H. No. 54, Ward No. 04, Korba District Korba
     Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
             Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur
             District Raipur Chhattisgarh
     2.      Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
             Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
     3.      Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
             Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Respondents

     For Petitioner                    :     Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate
     For State                         :     Mr. Amrito Das, Additional A.G.
     For Respondents No.2 & 3          :     Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

                           Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                      Order on Board

25/06/2021

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the action on the part of

the respondents- Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CG PSC),

whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been refused on account

of the petitioner not having proper caste certificate issued from the

competent authority under the Government of Chhattisgarh.

2. The facts in brief is that the petitioner had applied for the post of

Assistant Professor in Chemistry subject in the advertisement dated

18.01.2019 issued by the CG PSC. Out of the total 1384 posts

advertised 150 posts were of Assistant Professor (Chemistry). Out of

these 150, 79 posts were reserved for scheduled tribe (ST) category

candidate.

3. According to the petitioner, she belongs to the ST category and had

applied under the said category. According to the petitioner, she had a

temporary caste certificate that was issued by the Tehsildar, District

Korba as early as on 25.07.1997 under the erstwhile State of Madhya

Pradesh. It is also the contention of the petitioner that she has been

availing the benefits under the said category all along on the basis of

the said certificate that was issued in the year 1997. It is the further

contention of the petitioner that having participated in the recruitment

process, she was declared meritorious and was called upon for

document verification and counseling. However, at the time of

document verification, her candidature was refused on the ground that

she does not have proper certificates issued by a competent authority

under the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the petitioner, since she

had a valid certificate issued from the office of the Tehsildar, her

candidature should not have been refused only for the reason that it

was not a certificate issued by a competent officer under the State of

Chhattisgarh, It was the further contention of the petitioner that in fact

the respondents should not have insisted for production for a caste

certificate and if at all if they wanted they could have still granted time

to the petitioner even after the counseling. It was also the prayer of the

petitioner that let the petitioner be interviewed/subjected to counseling

and she should have granted time to produce the certificate

meanwhile.

4. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ram Kumar Gijroya v.

Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Another" (2016) 4

SCC 754. According to the petitioner, once when she had this

certificate issued in her favour in 1997, there was no necessity for her

to have obtained another certificate and prayed for a suitable direction

to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the

interview to be held on 26.06.2021.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel on advance copy appearing for the CG

PSC submitted that it is a case where the advertisement in the instant

case was issued on 18.01.2019. At the time of issuance of the

advertisement itself, the petitioner was well aware of the conditions

attached to the advertisement and wherein it was specifically

mentioned that all relevant records and documents must be in

possession of the petitioner. It was the further contention of the

respondents' counsel that vide order dated 04.06.2021, the petitioner

was issued a schedule showing the dates on which they will be

required to appear before the authorities for document verification and

for interview. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she was required to

appear for document verification on 21.06.2021 and for interview to be

held on 22.06.2021. It was the further contention of the learned

counsel for the PSC that in the said call letter itself, it was specifically

mentioned as regards the various documents, which would be required

for the purpose of document verification. In the said call letter, it was

emphatically made known that so far as caste certificates are

concerned, they have to be issued by a competent authority from the

State of Chhattisgarh and in case if the certificate is one, which was

issued under the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the said

certificate got to be revalidated by an officer from the State of

Chhattisgarh and it was also clearly mentioned in the call letter that

these documents would have to be mandatorily brought by the

candidates. Given the said facts, the counsel for the PSC submitted

that since the petitioner failed to produce the relevant document, her

candidature has been refused, which therefore cannot be said to be

either bad in law of arbitrary in any manner.

6. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the PSC that the

petitioner herself at a subsequent date moved an application before

the PSC seeking for extension of time to produce the proper caste

certificate and she sought extension up till 25 th of June and the PSC

accordingly exceeded to the request made by the petitioner and

accordingly fixed the date of interview on the 26th of June, yet the

petitioner could not produce the document, therefore there is nothing

that the PSC could have done more for the petitioner.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of

record, taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, the admitted factual matrix as it stands is that the petitioner had

applied for the said post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) from the

advertisement that was issued on 18.01.2019 and which was

published on 23.01.2019. This by itself would make things clear that

the petitioner had well over 2½ years time with her so as to obtain the

necessary permanent caste certificate from a competent authority

under the State of Chhattisgarh. If we look into the conditions attached

to the advertisement and also the conditions that were referred to by

the counsel for the respondents in the call letter, it would clearly reflect

that it was well within the notice of the petitioner so far as the

requirement of the relevant documents at the time of document

verification and interview. From the pleadings and the submissions that

the petitioner has made it appears that there has been no serious

efforts made by the petitioner after the advertisement was published

for obtaining the certificate from the competent authority ther is also no

serious efforts reflected from the pleadings of the petitioner having

made even after the call letter was issued. Nor has the petitioner

challenged the conditions to the advertisement as also in the call letter,

whereby it was specifically mentioned that relevant documents was

mandatorily required at the time of document verification and interview.

8. Another facts, which needs consideration is that the petitioner herself

had sought for an extension of the date of interview and document

verification from 21.05.2021 till 25.05.2021 within which she could

produce the document. However, inspite of this the petitioner could not

produce the document, so far as her caste status from a competent

authority in the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned.

9. Another fact, which needs to be considered is that the PSC acceded to

the petitioner's request and postponed the interview of the petitioner till

26.06.2021. It is thereafter that the petitioner thought of preferring this

writ petition and obtaining relief from this Court. It is also pertinent to

note that in the event if the condition of producing the valid caste

certificate issued from a competent authority under the State of

Chhattisgarh is to be waived, it cannot be waived only so far as the

petitioner is concerned.

10. Under the given factual backdrop, the relief in isolation to the petitioner

alone cannot be extended, which would be hitting the very basis of

Article 14 whereby many similarly placed persons who might have got

disqualified or refused on this ground would be deprived of such a

benefit. As regards the judgment referred to by the counsel for the

petitioner, the issue involved in the said case was under an entirely

different factual backdrop, which cannot be applied to the facts of the

present case and under the Rules, Regulations and Guidelines

applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh in a straight jacket formula and

accordingly, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is

distinguishable on its facts alone.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case

made out by the petitioner calling for an interference or calling for an

issuance of an appropriate writ to the respondents.

12. The writ petition thus sans merit and deserves to be and is accordingly

rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved