Patna High Court
Bijendra Dhanak vs The Union Of India on 12 November, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.206 of 2021
======================================================
Bijendra Dhanak Son of Shyamlal Dhanak, Resident of 62 Bina Etawa,
Purana Galla Mandi, Bina, District- Sager, Madhya Pradesh-470113
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Ministry of Railway
2. The East Central Railway Hajipur through its General Manager
3. The Inspector General -cum-Chief Security Commissioner East Central
railway, Hajipur
4. The Nodal Officer, Recruitment of Constable (band), East Central Railway,
Hajipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6 of 2021
======================================================
Suraj Bain Son of Hukum Chand, Resident of House no. 284, Gali no. 9,
Sadar Bazar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh - 482001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Ministry of Railway.
2. The East Central Railway, Hajipur through its General Manager.
3. The Inspector General-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, East Central
Railway, Hajipur.
4. The Nodal Officer, Recruitment of Constable (Band), East Central Railway,
Hajipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 206 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Ritika Rai, Adv.
For the UOI : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Adv.
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent (UOI) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-11-2024
Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.206 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024
2. The petitioners pray for issuance of writ in the
nature of mandamus directing upon the respondents to consider
the claim of the petitioners for thier appointment on the post of
Constable (Band) in Railway Protection Force/Railway
Protection Special Force in terms of the Employment Notice
No. 01 of 2016.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended
that in terms of the Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016 issued
by the East Central Railway for recruitment of 246 post of
Constable (Band), the petitioners, having found themselves
eligible, submitted their application form. On receipt of their
application forms in terms of the employment notice, the
petitioners were called for written test. Upon being qualified in
the written test, the petitioners were called for physical
efficiency test and the physical measurement test, in which they
also qualified. It is also contended that subsequent thereto, the
petitioners have also been qualified in trade test. The result of
the written test/physical test/trade test has been placed on record
as Annexure-2 to 5 to the writ petition. The petitioners, secured
good position in the merit list, whereupon they have been called
for verification of the documents.
4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted all the
Patna High Court CWJC No.206 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024
requisite documents, including the experience certificate as
required in terms of the employment notice. Despite possessing
required qualification and submission of the requisite
documents, including the experience certificate, the name of the
petitioners could not find place in the final selected list of the
successful candidates.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
respondent authorities came out with the order dated 11.11.2020
issued under the signature of the DIG, Recruitment and Training
Railway Board, New Delhi by which the application of the
petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 206 of 2021 came to be rejected. The
aforenoted order has also been put to challenge by filing an
Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2023. The
petitioners also questioned the appointment of one Lakhan Jatav,
who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, but his claim for
appointment has been duly considered, nonetheless, the
experience certificate produced by him also does not contain
any date, similar to the experience certificates produced by the
petitioners, but discrimination has been caused in consdring the
claim of the petitioners. The said Lakhan Jatav impleaded as
respondent no. 5 in the present writ petition.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners adverting
Patna High Court CWJC No.206 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024
to the aforesaid fact, has contended that the claim of the
petitioners have not found favor, only on account of the fact that
there was no date mentioned in the experience certificate.
Though the person, who has been proposed to be impleaded as
respondent no. 5, whose claim was considered in identical
situation on the basis of the experience certificate, containing no
date, thus, discrimination is writ large.
7. Drawing the attention of this Court in terms of the
Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016, especially the eligibility
criteria, learned Advocate for the petitioners further contended
that the Clause-D thereof clearly suggests that candidates must
have an experience of not less than two years in specified
musical instrument. So far the petitioners are concerned, the
experience certificate clearly denotes that the petitioners were
having requisite experience of two years or more in the musical
instrument of different nature. It is next contended that, in fact,
the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 206 of 2021 was having three
years' experience certificate, as one another certificate has also
been placed before the respondent authorities, issued by the
Anand Bras Band, Beena Sager M.P. i.e. for the period 1st of
January, 2015 to 1st of January, 2016, the copy of which has
also been placed along with other experience certificates.
Patna High Court CWJC No.206 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024
Similarly, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6 of 2021 has also
submitted two expereince certificates out of which one issued
by Sri Krishna Bras Band certifying experience of about three
years; from Februrary 2013 to January 2016. Hence, the non-
consideration of the case of the petitioners for their appointment
is wholly arbitrary, apart from discriminatory as the person
having identically situated, whose experience certificate also
does not bear the date, has been considered and subsequently
appointed.
8. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Union
of India primarily contended that at the time of the verification
of the documents, in both the cases, it has been found that two
different experience certificates have been submitted. In
C.W.J.C. No. 206 of 2021, one certificate was issued by Vishal
Bras, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in which the date of issuance
has not been mentioned; however, it certifies that the petitioner
was having experience of two years. At the time of document
verification, the petitioners produced different experience
certificate issued by Anand Bras Band, Beena Sager, Madhya
Pradesh, in which his experience shows only for one year.
Another certificate of Vishal Bras, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh is
found different from the earlier certificate, which was submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.206 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024
at the time of the submission of the application form.
9. In C.W.J.C. No. 6 of 2021 at the time of submitting
application, the petitioner has submitted Training certificate
issued by 6th Training Batalion Special Armed Force, Jabalpur
(M.P.), in which date of issue is not mentioned, and only three
month experience is shown in certificate instead of two years.
At the time of Documents Verification, he has produced
different experience certificate i.e., Sri Krishna Brass (M.P.)
without date of its issuance which was found different from the
initial application.
10. It is further contended that the case of the
petitioners is quite different from the case of Lakhan Jatav,
where the experience certificate only lacks its date of issuance.
So far the cases in hand are concerned, the petitioners gave two
different certificates at two different times with different
content, having no date of issuance. Apart from the aforesaid
fact, the employment notice clearly contains that a candidate
must have to apply for selection to the post of Constable under
the instrument wise vacancy, but so far the experience
certificates of the petitioners are concerned, it talks about three
and four instruments.
11. The similar issue has also been brought before
Patna High Court CWJC No.206 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024
this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10487 of 2020, wherein, the Hon'ble
Court vide its order dated 15.07.2022, having found no merit in
the claim of the petitioner has dismissed the writ petition, as the
application and experience certificate of the petitioner of the
said writ petition has been found in violation of the terms of the
advertisement.
12. Heard the learned Advocate for the respective
parties and also perused the materials available on record,
especially the Employment Notice 01 of 2016, it clearly stipulates
instrument vise vacancies. Admittedly, the experience certificates
of the petitioners, which have been placed on record, demonstrate
their experience with respect to the various nature of insturments.
Furthermore, the experience certificates submitted at the time of
submission of the application form and the certificates which are
said to have been submitted at the time of verification, clearly
reveal those are also different to the earlier certificates. So far the
contention of the petitioners seeking parity to one Lakhan Jatav is
concerned, though his experience certificate is also with respect to
four of the instruments, but the case of the petitioners is admittedly
different to said Lakhan Jatav, inasmuch as, it is not the case that
the Lakhan Jatav has submitted two different certificates, whereas,
prima facie, this Court finds that the petitioners have
Patna High Court CWJC No.206 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024
submitted two different certificates at two different stages.
13. Suffice it to say that even if this Court finds
irregularity in the selection of the Lakhan Jatav, the same cannot
be perpetuated by allowing the claim of the petitioners.
14. By now it is settled that guarantee of equality
before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced in a
negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity is committed in
favour of any individual or a group of individual or a wrong
order has been passed by a judicial power, other cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of Higher Court or Superior Court for repealing
or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality.
15. On the reasons aforenoted, this Court does not
find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.11.2024
Transmission Date NA
