Taruna vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4368 Del

#54
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of decision : 28th October, 2009

+                      W.P.(C) 11382/2009

TARUNA                                        ..... Petitioner
                   Through Mr.Pankaj Mathur for counsel

                   versus

UOI & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                  Through Mr.M.L.Khan, Advocate for R-1-3
                          Mr.N.Waziri, Advocate for Govt. of
                          NCT of Delhi
              CORAM:
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order

dated 04.07.2009 whereby the petitioner has been informed

that since the SC certificate submitted by her was found to be

forged, her candidature for being appointed to the post of

Constable/GD (female) in Central Industrial Security Force was

rejected.

2. In response to an advertisement inviting applications for

being appointed as a Constable/GD (Female) under CISF, the

petitioner applied under the quota 'reserved for members

belonging to Schedule Castes'. The petitioner cleared the

written test as also the physical test. She cleared the

interview.

3. Having successfully cleared the afore-noted tests and the

interview, the petitioner was directed to appear for medical

examination on 4.7.2009, on which date, instead of subjecting

her to a medical examination, she was handed over a rejection

slip of even date. The rejection slip reads as under:-

"REJECTION SLIP

Roll Number : 08010099 Name : Taruna Father's Name : Sh. Ram Singh Your candidature to the post of Const/GD (F) in CISF is rejected on the following grounds: On verification of Caste certificate issued on 28/09/1998, it was found that the same has not been issued by sub-division vivek vihar. Hence, candidature rejected."

Signature of the candidate Signature and name of the recruitment board."

4. What had happened in the interregnum was that as per

procedure, in between the selection process and the medical

examination, CISF authorities sent for verification to the

Executive Magistrate, Vivek Vihar, the original certificate dated

28.9.1998 which was submitted by the petitioner, for the

reason the same was purportedly issued by the Executive

Magistrate, Vivek Vihar and a communication was received by

CISF from the office of the Executive Magistrate, Vivek Vihar,

that the certificate in question was not issued from the office

of the Executive Magistrate, Vivek Vihar.

5. Based on this information the respondent (CISF) has

rejected the candidature of the petitioner.

6. On receiving the aforesaid rejection slip, the petitioner

contacted the concerned Executive Magistrate, Vivek Vihar

and appraised the urgency of the matter. She pointed out that

the certificate in question was indeed issued to her. By way of

abundant precaution she applied for being issued a fresh caste

certificate. The concerned Executive Magistrate was helpful

and issued a fresh caste certificate on 08.07.2009 on an

urgent basis, after due verification. The certificate certified

that the petitioner was a member of a scheduled caste in

Delhi.

7. Having great hope, the petitioner approached respondent

No.3 on the basis of the fresh caste certificate issued on

08.07.2009 but said respondent did not respond thereto.

8. Having no other option, the petitioner has challenged the

action and inaction of the respondents by filing the present

writ petition.

9. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner annexed the

certificates issued by the Executive Magistrate, Vivek Vihar in

the name of her father, mother and brother, certifying them to

be belonging to the community 'Jatav Chamar' which is listed

as a Scheduled Caste in Delhi.

10. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4

which has been deposed to by the Tehsildar/Executive

Magistrate, Preet Vihar, Delhi to the effect that the certificate

issued on 08.07.2009 in the name of Ms.Taruna D/o Sh. Ram

Singh was issued by said office after due inquiry/verification.

But, the certificate issued in the year 1998 was not issued by

their office.

11. During hearing of the writ petition, we were not satisfied

by the response of respondent No.4 pertaining to the caste

certificate claimed by the petitioner to be issued in her name

in the year 1998 and we directed respondent No. 3 to bring the

original caste certificate of the petitioner in Court, since same

was retained by them. On production of the original

certificate, photocopy of the same was handed over to learned

counsel for respondent No.4 for it being verified.

12. Today, Mr.Nazmi Waziri, learned counsel for respondent

No.4 appeared along with the Executive Magistrate, Vivek

Vihar and has produced the dispatch registers maintained in

the said office and concedes that vide entry No.422 dated

6.7.1998 it stands recorded that a certificate has been issued

in the name of the petitioner.

13. Thus, it is apparent, a fact which is conceded by

Mr.Nazmi Waziri, learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the

certificate bearing No.148799/422 was indeed issued on

6.7.1998 to the petitioner and that the same is a genuine

document.

14. Mr.Nazmi Waziri, learned counsel for respondent No.4

states that a wrong information was conveyed to CISF for the

reason the register pertaining to the years 1997 till the year

2000 recording issuance of the certificates to members of the

Scheduled Castes from the office concerned was with the

Vigilance Department and inadvertently, with reference to the

register pertaining to the certificates issued to OBCs, noting

that in said register, the particulars of the certificate in

question were not entered, it was informed that the certificate

was not issued from the office. Mr.Nazmi Waziri expresses

apology for the wrong act of respondent No.4 who caused the

verification to be effected with reference to a wrong register.

15. Thus, the issue stands concluded in favour of the

petitioner. Indeed, the caste certificate submitted by her and

issued in her favour bearing No.148799/422, bearing the date

18.9.1998 is genuine.

16. We thus issue a mandamus to respondents No.1 to 3, to

forthwith medically examined the petitioner and if she is found

to be medically fit to issue her an appointment letter to the

post of 'Constable/GD (Female)' in CISF. We further direct that

for purposes of her seniority and length of service, if petitioner

is found medically fit, she would be treated as employed with

effect from the date the persons in the select list were given

appointments. We clarify that having not worked under CISF,

she would not be paid the past wages. In issuing the

mandamus we have been guided by the fact that in the merit

list, the seniority position of the petitioner entitles her to be

appointed to the post in question and that CISF authorities

have done no wrong.

17. It is apparent that at the root of the problem is the casual

manner in which respondent No.4 has acted by not properly

verifying what respondent No.4 was required to verify. The

result thereof is that the petitioner has remained unemployed

for four months. For the inconvenience caused to the

petitioner as also to compensate her for the loss of wages we

award compensation in sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the

petitioner with a direction that the same shall be paid by the

Government of NCT of Delhi.

18. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of

Court Master.

SURESH KAIT, J.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

OCTOBER 28, 2009 hk