Sanoop Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 2513 Del

$~13.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+               WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8102/2016
                                            Date of decision: 18th May, 2017
        SANOOP KUMAR                             ..... Petitioner
                    Through Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate.
                    versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                      Through Mr. Prasanta Varma & Ms. Prativarani
                      Varma, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        The Staff Selection Commission has filed the counter affidavit.

Union of India, Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, and DIGP

(Recruitment), Regional Recruitment Centre, CRPF, New Delhi, have not

filed their short counter affidavit.

2.      Notice in the writ petition was issued vide order dated 25 th

November, 2016. Sufficient time and opportunity has been given to the

afore-stated respondents to file counter affidavit, and we are not inclined to

grant and extend further time in view of the limited and short issue, which

arises for consideration.

3.      Advertisement dated 24th January, 2015 issued by the Staff Selection

Commission had invited application for selection/appointment to the post

of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces and

W.P. (C) No. 8102/2016                                             Page 1 of 5
 Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles, etc.

4.      The petitioner, who belongs to Other Backward Classes, had applied

for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Force

and Rifleman (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles.

5.      The petitioner having qualified the Physical Endurance Test had

appeared in the written examination and apparently had cleared the same.

Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to appear for medical examination

on 30th May, 2016 at Chhawla Camp, Najafgarh, Delhi alongwith the

original documents, including the domicile certificate, photocopy of which

had been filed with the application form. The petitioner claims that he was

medically examined and declared fit/qualified.

6.      At the time of medical examination, the petitioner had produced the

domicile certificate for the State of Delhi, which was issued by the

Tehsildar on 11th July, 2014. This was required as per Note III in the

advertisement dated 24th January, 2015 published by the Staff Selection

Commission, and reads as under:-

            "Note III:      As the vacancies have been allotted to
            the concerned States/UTs, candidates are required to
            submit domicile certificates of the states indicated by
            them in the application at the time of medical
            examination/documents verification failing which
            his/her candidature will be cancelled forthright and the
            candidate will not be allowed to undergo medical
            examination.     If a candidate produces domicile
            certificate issued by a state other than the state
            mentioned in his application he will be allowed to
            change the state code at the time of verification of

W.P. (C) No. 8102/2016                                             Page 2 of 5
             documents."


7.      The petitioner was then informed that he should furnish a fresh valid

domicile certificate as on the date of medical examination, notwithstanding

the fact that he had furnished the domicile certificate that was valid when

the advertisement was published.

8.      The petitioner in this situation had no alternative, but had sought

time for submission of fresh domicile certificate. As per averments in

paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the said request was accepted.

9.      The petitioner immediately approached the competent authority for

issue of fresh domicile certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the

authorities did not accept his request and issue the domicile certificate as

the computer system in Delhi was down due to Jat Andolan and could be

restored only on 21st June, 2016. The domicile certificate could be issued

by the authorities on 27th June, 2016. The petitioner on obtaining copy of

the domicile certificate dated 27th June, 2016, immediately approached the

authorities, including Staff Selection Commission and ITBP, Chhawla

Camp. The said certificate was not accepted by hand.

10.     The petitioner thereupon had sent a representation by speed post on

4th July, 2016.

11.     The DIGP (Recruitment), Group Centre, CRPF, New Delhi vide

order/letter dated 15th July, 2016 returned the fresh domicile certificate on


W.P. (C) No. 8102/2016                                             Page 3 of 5
 the ground that the petitioner was given sufficient time to furnish the said

certificate, but he had failed to deposit the original certificate. It was also

stated that at present all Board proceedings and documents have been

sealed by the Board and deposited. Boards have been disbandoned and the

Board proceedings have been forwarded to the office.

12.     We have already reproduced Note III of the advertisement dated 24th

January, 2015, which had required the candidates to submit domicile

certificate of the States indicated by them in their application.           The

petitioner on this basis had enclosed domicile certificate issued on 11 th

July, 2014 alongwith the application.        The said certificate was also

produced before the Medical Board. However, there was time gap between

issue of advertisement on 24th January, 2015 and medical examination,

which was held after more than 1 ½ years on 30th May, 2016. Possibly, the

petitioner missed out and did not notice that the domicile certificate had

recorded that it was valid for a period of one year from the date of issue.

For some reason the authorities in Delhi are issuing domicile certificate

valid for one year. Note III on the said aspect was unclear, whether the

certificate should be valid on the date of advertisement, filing of

application, last date of receipt of application or on date of medical

examination.       The petitioner had thereupon tried to apply for a fresh

domicile certificate with the authorities, but issue of fresh certificate took

about 27 days because of administrative reasons as the computer systems

W.P. (C) No. 8102/2016                                              Page 4 of 5
 were down.

13.     We do not think that this is a case wherein the petitioner should

suffer and denied chance of being employed for the aforesaid reasons. In

fairness, the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner.

14.     Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition and direct the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post advertised in

accordance with law.       The said exercise would be undertaken and

completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. The petitioner will be given appointment from the date of

joining and he would not be entitled to backwages and seniority. It is

obvious that the respondents would have to also verify and ascertain

whether the petitioner is otherwise qualified. The writ petition is allowed

in the aforesaid terms, without any order as to costs.

        DASTI.

                                              SANJIV KHANNA, J.

REKHA PALLI, J. MAY 18, 2017 VKR