Shiv Kesh vs Uoi And Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 5126 Del

4
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +    W.P.(C)No.13563/2009

                                Date of Decision : 11th November, 2010

%
      SHIV KESH                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Through : Mr. P.K. Jain,
                                      Mr. P.K. Goswami and
                                      Mr. Arun Choudhary, Advs.

                       versus

      UOI AND ORS                                 ..... Respondents
                            Through : Mr. Anshuman Sinha,
                                      Mr. Ajay V. Singh and
                                      Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey,
                                      Advs.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may            NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?           NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                   NO
        reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of the

respondent to appoint him as a constable with the Railway

Protection Force pursuant to the recruitment process initiated

in terms of the Notice No.1/2007 dated 5th June, 2007 in the

employment news. This notice advertised the initiation of the

process undertaken by the respondent for recruitment of 1165

posts of constables.

2. The petitioner had applied in the OBC Category. It is

undisputed that as per the notified process, a candidate who

had applied under the reserved category was required to

produce the caste certificate (SC/ST/OBC) issued by the District

Authority on the prescribed proforma. The petitioner was

found fit in the physical efficiency test and had also

successfully undertaken the written examination held on 10th

November, 2008.

3. It is after this event when a dispute has arisen. The

petitioner has contended that he learnt about the result of the

written examination from its publication on 16th January, 2009

in the Amar Ujala Newspaper at Saharanpur U.P. By this

notification, the petitioner also learnt that he was required to

produce the prescribed documents which included the High

School Certificate and Mark Sheet as well as the aforenoticed

caste certificate on 17th March, 2009 for verification by the

respondents.

4. Before this court, the petitioner has placed a copy of the

caste certificate dated 17th March, 2009 issued from the office

of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, which certifies that the

petitioner belongs to the Baddai caste and his father's annual

income is `2,23,128/-. It has also been certified that the

petitioner does not fall in the creamy layer. This certificate also

notified that the petitioner's caste has been recognized as

falling in the Other Backward Class and details of the

notifications in this behalf have been set out.

5. On the other hand, the petitioner has contended that he

had applied for issuance of the certificate in the prescribed

format on 13th March, 2009 to the competent authority at

Saharanpur and had been issued this certificate on 17th March,

2009. As per the public notice issued by the respondents, this

certificate along with the school leaving certificate were to be

submitted with the respondents at their office at Jagadhari. It

has been explained that the distance between Saharanpur and

the office at Jagadhari is about 29 kms and that the petitioner

had duly submitted the caste certificate with the respondents

along with all other documents.

6. The respondents contend that this certificate was not

received by them.

7. We find that the respondents do not dispute the receipt of

the other documents from the petitioner on the 17th March,

2009. It is an admitted position that no receipt is issued to the

applicants against receipt of the required and prescribed

documents from them.

The recruitment process entails handling of documents

relating to thousands of candidates. There would be substance

in the petitioner's contention that the certificate submitted by

the petitioner is very well misplaced in the records.

8. In this background, in the absence of any other material,

we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner

and accept his statement that copy of the caste certificate was

also furnished with the other documents.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents informs us that

along with the application, the petitioner had submitted a caste

certificate from the state authority in the format required by

the state. It is undisputed that even this certificate informs

that the petitioner belongs to the Baddai caste which has been

recognized as OBC for the purposes of employment in the

state. This fact also supports the contention of the petitioner

that he had applied for the caste certificate in the prescribed

format for employment with the respondents on 13 th March,

2009 which was received by him on 17th March, 2009. The

caste in both the certificates admittedly remains the same.

10. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in rejecting the

candidature of the petitioner, the present writ petition was filed

along with the interim application seeking reservation of one

post of Constable. On 3rd December, 2009, this court had

passed an order on this application directing that if the writ

petition succeeds, it would be obligation of the respondents to

give appointment to the petitioner by either creating an

additional post withdrawing the empanelment of the last

selected person as per the select list.

11. In view of the above, we direct as follows:-

(i) The respondents shall effect verification of the

documents submitted by the petitioner including the

caste certificate dated 17th March, 2009.

(ii) In order to obviate any controversy, we direct the

petitioner to place a fresh copy of all required

documents including the said certificate with the

Chairman of the Constable Recruitment Committee

- 2008, respondent No.3 within a period of two

weeks from today. The verification shall be

positively completed within a period of six weeks of

the receipt of the documents from the petitioner.

(iii) In case such Committee is not functioning, such

documents shall be submitted with Mr. Anoop

Srivastava, Deputy Inspector General, Railway

Protection Force, Baroda House, New Delhi who shall

ensure the compliance of our direction.

(iv) In case the verification is favourable to the

petitioner, the petitioner shall be placed

appropriately in the merit list which was made

pursuant to the selection process undertaken in

terms of the public notice No.1/2007.

(v) If the petitioner is appropriately placed in the merit

list, the respondents shall ensure the appointment

of the petitioner in terms of the directions made in

the order dated 3rd December, 2009.

12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

13. Dasti

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 11, 2010 HL