Satish Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 621 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                  Date of decision: 08.02.2013
+              W.P.(C) 746/2013, C.M. APPL.1450/2013 (for stay)
       SATISH KUMAR                                       ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Sh. Rahul Sharma with Ms. Jyoti Dutt
                              Sharma, Advocates.

                              versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                ..... Respondents
                     Through : Sh. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC, for
                     Respondents.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%

1.     Issue notice. Sh. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of
the respondents, and states that the petition can be disposed off at this stage.
2.     The petitioner, in this case, is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and
applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) [hereafter referred to as
"Constable (GD)"], in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP), under
the head/category "Other Backward Class" (hereafter referred to as "OBC"),
pursuant to the publication of advertisement by the Respondent No.2 in the
Employment News/Rozgar Samachar, dated 05.02.2011. The petitioner
fulfilled all the conditions and duly deposited all the documents required as
per the said advertisement.




W.P.(C)746/2013, C.M. APPL.1450/2013                                       Page 1
 3.     The petitioner was successful in clearing the Physical Standards Test
(PST), Physical Endurance Test (PET), Written Examination, Detailed
Medical Examination (DME) etc., but his candidature to the said post was
rejected by the respondents on the ground that:
(a)    the OBC certificate submitted initially by him is not valid as it had
been issued by a Sub-Tehsildar;
(b)    the OBC certificate furnished by the petitioner later cannot be
accepted as the same is dated 15.05.2012 (should have been between
05.03.2008 and 04.03.2011); and,
(c)    the petitioner is over-aged in the „General Category‟.
4.     We have heard counsel for the parties.
5.     The petitioner relies upon the certificate dated 23.12.2010, issued in
this case by the "Upa-Tehsildar" (Deputy Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar,
Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan). It is argued that the seal states that the
document was issued by the office and under the authority of the Tehsildar.
Learned counsel also highlighted that, after rejection of the petitioner‟s
candidature in the present case, an attempt to secure information under the
Right to Information Act (RTI Act), specifically whether the Naib Tehsildar
was authorised to issue such certificate, was made. In response to the query
(under the RTI Act), the Government of Rajasthan, by its reply dated
16.11.2010, issued the following communication/Order:
                       "GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
                       HOME (GROUP-9) DEPARTMENT

       SERIAL: P-15/1(32)HOME-9/61 PART-11
                                    JAIPUR, DATE: 16-11-10

                                       ORDER

W.P.(C)746/2013, C.M. APPL.1450/2013 Page 2 SUBJECT: IN RELATION TO CERTIFICATE OF RESIDENCE

Vide Order dated 10-04-90 issued by this department the residence proof certificate in addition to District Magistrate and Deputy District Magistrate, the Assistant District Magistrate and Administrator (ACM) and under Order dated 1- 7-06, all the Tehsildars have been duly authorized to issue residence proof certificate.

In addition to the above-said officers during the operation of "Administration with Village Program-2010", Additional Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar, Upnivashan Tehsildar, Upnivashan Naib Tehsildar have duly been authorized to issue residential proof certificates.

Sd/-

(O.P. Yadav) Administrative Deputy Secretary Home (Security and Safety Department)

Copy to:-

1. Chief Secretary, Hon'ble Governor, Rajasthan

2. Chief Secretary, Hon'ble Chief Minister, Rajasthan

3. Private Secretary, Chief Secretary, Rajasthan

4. Private Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Rajasthan

5. Private Secretary, Chief Secretary, Finance Rajasthan

6. All Chiefs of Department, Rajasthan

7. All District Magistrates, Rajasthan

8. Director, Publication, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for publication in Official Gazette.

Sd/-

(O.P. Yadav) Administrative Deputy Secretary Home (Security and Safety Department)"

W.P.(C)746/2013, C.M. APPL.1450/2013 Page 3

6. It is emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above clarification, if there were any lingering doubts about the veracity of the certificate of the authority or the genuineness of the Tehsildar‟s seal, they stood settled; and the respondents ought to have acted upon it, and processed the petitioner‟s candidature further; and culminated in his appointment letter. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to highlight the fact that the petitioner had applied for the post in the Regional Office at Chandigarh; and also competed for the post. Though he articulated the objection as to jurisdiction, learned counsel fairly stated that the said Headquarters is at New Delhi. The rejection of the petitioner‟s candidature was in New Delhi. The respondents‟ counsel next argued that whether the Deputy Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar was entitled to issue a caste certificate has not been communicated clearly, in the order dated 16.11.2010, of the State of Rajasthan (extracted above), as it pertains only to the issuance of the residence certificates.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of parties. The respondents apparently do not deny that the certificate relied upon by the petitioner in this case was issued before the relevant date, i.e. 04.03.2011; it was, in fact, issued on 23.12.2010. The controversy is, therefore, confined to whether it was properly issued by an authorized officer. The objection raised is that the certificate in question has been signed by the Deputy Tehsildar who happens to be one rank below, and not by the Tehsildar himself. The document relied on by the petitioner, i.e. the order of the Government of Rajasthan dated 16.11.2010, no doubt, mentions that certificates of residence can be issued by Naib Tehsildar, Upnivashan Tehsildar, Upnivashan Naib

W.P.(C)746/2013, C.M. APPL.1450/2013 Page 4 Tehsildar etc. However, the Court is of the opinion that to construe this order narrowly, excluding the authorisation to issue caste certificates, would be, at this stage, hyper-technical. It is not unknown for different state authorities to organize their affairs through rules of business or in specific enactments, as to empower their officials broadly, to issue both residence and caste certificates, having regard to exigencies of administration and service. In these circumstances, this Court, at least, ought not speculate as to whether the concerned officer, i.e. Upa Tehsildar/Deputy Tehsildar, in the present case, had or did not possess the authorization to issue a caste certificate to the petitioner.

8. Facially, the certificate indicates that it was issued by the office of the Tehsildar and under the authority of Tehsildar. Admittedly, it carries the seal of the Tehsildar and it has not been rejected on the ground that it does not carry such a seal. The ground of rejection appears to be that it was not issued by the competent authority. In our view, more than the person who has put his signature on the document, it is the seal of the Officer under which a document has been issued that matters. It is the seal that validates the document; and unless the respondents have reason to believe that either the seal is forged or mis-used, it is immaterial who has signed it. Of course, it is always open to every Authority to make such enquiries as it thinks fit to verify the genuineness of the seal of the Authority under which the certificate appears to have been issued; but it is not open to the respondents to reject such a document out of hand if it is shown to carry the seal of the Tehsildar himself since the existence of such a seal means that ex facie, it is issued by the Tehsildar or on his behalf; and more significantly, that it carries the mandate of the office of the Tehsildar. In the same context, the

W.P.(C)746/2013, C.M. APPL.1450/2013 Page 5 order of the Government dated 16.11.2010 also, facially indicates that the Naib Tehsildar was given certain broad powers to issue similar certificates.

9. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the rejection of the petitioner‟s candidature by the impugned order dated 21.11.2012 appears to have been on extremely narrow and technical grounds. It cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

10. The respondents are now directed to process the petitioner‟s application further in terms of the relevant rules and regulations. It would, however, be open to the respondents to make such further enquiries as they may be advised under the circumstances with regard to the authenticity of the certificate in question, and whether the same has been issued by or on behalf of the Tehsildar by a duly authorised person. The entire process be completed within two months from today. The respondents shall keep one post vacant for such period, or till such time the process is not completed.

11. The result of the enquiry shall be directly communicated to the petitioner.

12. The writ petition and pending application are disposed off in the above terms. All rights of parties are hereby reserved.

Order dasti to the parties.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 08, 2013 'ajk/ac'

W.P.(C)746/2013, C.M. APPL.1450/2013 Page 6