Neeraj Kumar Prasad vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 2449 Del

     $~
     11
     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     +    W.P.(C) 6396/2012

     %                          Date of decision: 23rd May, 2013

      NEERAJ KUMAR PRASAD                ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Ms. Rekha Palli and
                            Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
                  versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS        ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. Pursuant to the advertisement issued on 6th October, 2010 for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Stenographers) and Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Central Reserve Police Force, the petitioner had applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) as a OBC candidate, belonging to the caste „Sonar‟.

2. The petitioner contends that his application was made to respondent no.4 at Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh and was accompanied with all relevant documents. The petitioner has submitted that the documents were checked by the respondents on 12th March, 2011 as well as his physical measurement was verified.

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 1 of 9 He was thereafter issued an information slip requiring him to appear for the written examination held on 10 th July, 2011. It is at this stage when the respondents made an endorsement that the OBC certificate furnished by the petitioner was not in the prescribed format. The petitioner successfully undertook the written examination on 13th August, 2011 and was required to appear for the 2nd phase tests, i.e, typing speed/shorthand test on the 27th of September, 2011.

3. Having successfully cleared the same, the petitioner was required to appear for the interview on 3rd October, 2011 where he again produced his caste certificate dated 28th May, 2011 issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

This certificate was rejected by the respondents on the ground that his caste certificate was not in the prescribed format and the petitioner was told to get another caste certificate within a week.

4. The petitioner promptly approached the District Magistrate of East Singhum, Jamshedpur on 7th October, 2011 with an application enclosing all relevant documents as well as affidavit requesting for early issuance of a caste certificate as per the Central Government format. Unfortunately, the Circle Officer passed an order dated 8th October, 2011 arbitrarily declining/refusing to issue a certificate to the petitioner on the ground that his family‟s land was not recorded in the Government record and therefore he could

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 2 of 9 not be issued a domicile certificate. Perusal of this document dated 8th October, 2011 shows that the document endorses the fact that the petitioner was covered within „Other Backward Category‟ under the „Sonar‟ caste and an affidavit and salary slip had been submitted. Having failed to obtain the certificate in prescribed format, the petitioner on 15th October, 2011 approached the Head of the Panchayat in the village Aundi Post Chilkahr, Balia, Uttar Pradesh where he was issued a caste certificate in the Central Government format by the Tehsildar, Rasda, balia, Uttar Pradesh to the effect that he belonged to „Sonar‟ caste was is covered in the Other Backward Category.

This certificate could thereafter be submitted by the petitioner only on the 5th of November, 2011 with the office of respondent no.5.

5. The petitioner submitted this certificate of the office of the Deputy Inspector (Recruitment) at New Delhi who by a signal dated 28th October, 2011 directed the Deputy Inspector General Police (Medical) Composite Hospital, Neemuch to the effect that the petitioner‟s candidature for the applied post may be accepted and called upon the Deputy Inspector General to conduct the petitioner‟s medical examination.

6. In the medical examination which was conducted on 15 th November, 2011, the petitioner was declared medically fit and he was informed that he would finally receive his appointment letter. Despite all these directives, nothing was done for a period of five

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 3 of 9 months.

7. Finally, after passage of five months, by a letter dated 5th March, 2012 sent by respondent no.5, the petitioner was informed that for the reasons that the OBC certificate dated 15th October, 2011 had been issued from District Balia (Uttar Pradesh) whereas his earlier certificate had been issued from Jharkhand State, he was required to give an explanation for submitting the OBC certificate from two states. The petitioner was also required to provide domicile certificate from concerned authorities.

8. The petitioner therefore returned to the District Balia (Uttar Pradesh) on account of his family‟s origin being located in the District Balia (U.P.) and his maternal family was also residing at District Balia, he was issued a domicile certificate dated 23 rd April, 2012 by the office of the Deputy District Officer. The petitioner submitted this with the representation dated 7th May, 2012 to respondent no.4. The petitioner has submitted that an inquiry has been made by the respondents from the concerned Tehsildar regarding the petitioner‟s caste and domicile certificate issued from District Balia (Uttar Pradesh) and the same was found to be genuine. We find that this averment of the petitioner has not been disputed in the counter affidavit.

9. So far as the appointment of the petitioner was concerned, nothing moved. In response to the report dated 5th June, 2012, was informed vide letter dated 19th July, 2012 that the matter was still under consideration. Finally a communication dated 7 th August,

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 4 of 9 2012 was issued by respondent no.5 informing the petitioner that his candidature was being cancelled on the ground that despite opportunities, he had not produced the Other Backward Category/Domicile certificate from his home town.

10. The petitioner was thus compelled to approach this court as well as because his further representation dated 27th September, 2012 received no response at all.

11. The present writ petition is pending in this court since 3rd October, 2012 and has been opposed by the respondents who have filed their counter affidavit repudiating the same.

12. During the hearing of the matter on 22nd April, 2013, given the doubt which was created before us with regard to the same issue that the petitioner possessed the certificate from two States, we were persuaded to pass the following order:-

"1. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the respondents should verify the authenticity of the certificate dated 28th May, 2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (at page 100) certifying that the petitioner falls under the backward category as well as the authenticity of the certificate dated 15th October, 2011 issued by the Officer of the Tehsil Rasada, District- Balia, Uttar Pradesh (at page 53) also certifying that the petitioner belongs to the "Sonar" sub-Caste which was under the other backward category.

      2.            We may note that the respondents
      admit that         the petitioner‟s father,       Sh. Om
      Prakash,     Head      Constable (CRPF personnel) also

belongs to the OBC category. The respondents shall also verify as to whether the "Sonar" sub-Caste continues to

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 5 of 9 belong to the Other Backward Category.

3. The verification shall be done within 4 weeks from today and placed before this Court before next date of hearing. Dasti.

4. List on 23rd May, 2013."

13. The respondents have today placed a communication dated Nil May, 2013 pursuant to the verification conducted by them in respect of the OBC caste certificate dated 24th October, 2007 issued by the Anumandal Padakhikari, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) as well as the OBC caste certificate dated 15th October, 2011 issued by the Tehsildar, Rasda, District, Balia (U.P.) which had been produced by the petitioner before the respondents. The same is taken on record. As per the communication dated Nil, May, 2013, it is reported as follows:-

"3. The Anumandal Padadhikari, Dhalbhum Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) vide letter No.480 dated 07/05/2013 has intimated that caste certificate No.535/06-07 dated 24/10/2007 of Shri Neeraj Kumar Prasad S/O Shri Om Prakash Prasad is entered in their caste certificate issue registere and it is correct.

4. The Tehsildar, Rasda, Distt, Balia (U.P.) vide letter No.140/P.P.L. dated 13/05/2013 has intimated that as per their record OBC caste certificate of "Sonar" Caste No.63311317122 dated 15/10/2011 has been issued to Shri Neeraj Kumar Prasad S/O Shri Om Prakash by this office, At present "Sonar" caste comes under OBC category.

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 6 of 9

5. Further, the DIGP (Law) Dte Genl. vide signal No.J.II-254/2012-LWP-I dated 09/05/2013 directed to this GC to verify whether the "SONAR" sub caste continues to belong to OBC.

xxx xxx xxx"

14. So far as the submission that the certificate was not in the prescribed format is concerned, this objection was also admittedly removed by the petitioner when he produced the certificate dated 15th October, 2011 issued by the Tehsildar, Rasda, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).

15. It is submitted before us during the course of arguments that the certificate has been submitted by the petitioner beyond the last date. The petitioner has explained the circumstances in which the delay was occasioned. The explanation of the petitioner has not been controverted. We also find the explanation genuine and certainly beyond the control of the petitioner. There is no delay which is attributable to the petitioner in submission of the documents.

16. It is apparent from the above that the both the certificates which have been produced by the petitioners and furnished to the respondents were genuine. Both certificates affirm the petitioner‟s claim that he belongs to the „Sonar‟ sub-caste which fell under the category of Other Backward Class. We may notice yet another description in the instant case. It is an admitted position before us that the petitioner‟s father Om Prakash Prasad is employed as Head Constable (Driver) by the Central Reserve Police Force under the

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 7 of 9 OBC category. This is a material factor which was within the knowledge of the respondents. It was brought to the notice of the respondents. Yet they have chosen to deliberately overlook the same. This was a material factor. Therefore, so far as the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was covered under the OBC category is concerned, the same could not have been doubted. Where is the occasion to raise the objections which the respondents have raised one after another in respect of this petitioner?

17. In the facts and circumstances, certainly the petitioner cannot be denied employment at this stage on the specious ground that the certificate was not in the prescribed format or the certificates submitted belatedly.

18. In the given facts and circumstances, we feel that grave and unwarranted injustice has been done to the petitioner. He has been made to run from pillar to post without any fault on his part despite the admitted factual position especially with regard to the caste of his father and the fact that his father was recruited under the Other Backward category and continues to be so even on date. The petitioner‟s certificates were also unfairly doubted. The respondents also unreasonably sat over the matter for several days.

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

(i) the order dated 7th August, 2012 is hereby held to be illegal and is set aside and quashed.

(ii) the respondents are directed to forthwith issue an offer of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Head Constable

WP(C) No.6396/2012 page 8 of 9 (Ministerial) for which he was selected and has cleared all tests.

(iii) In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner will be deemed to have been appointed on the date when his batchmates were appointed and selected, with notional benefits of seniority and salary fixation at the appropriate levels.

(iv) the respondents shall compute the salary of the petitioner on the date he joins service granting him all financial benefits to which he would be entitled at par with his batchmates.

(v) the respondents shall pass appropriate order of this effect within two weeks from today.

(vi) The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of the present litigation which are quantified at Rs.30,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Dasti to parties.

                                                  GITA MITTAL, J




                                               DEEPA SHARMA, J
        MAY 23, 2013
        mk




WP(C) No.6396/2012                                          page 9 of 9