Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahlad Ray Kumhar vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3891/2022
Prahlad Ray Kumhar S/o Shri Kishan Lal Kumhar, aged about 30
Years, R/o VPO Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesr, Dist. Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Ayurved and
Indian Medicine Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department of Ayurved, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, through its Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Karwar,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan
Ayurved University, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG.
Mr. Suniel Purohit, R-3 & 4.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
16/03/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the non-inclusion of his name in the provisional merit list
issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of
Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in terms of Advertisement dated
17.06.2021.
It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the
petitioner applied pursuant to the Advertisement and indicated his
(2 of 4) [CW-3891/2022]
category as 'OBC (NCL)'. The petitioner was called for document
verification, wherein the petitioner produced a caste certificate
dated 07.09.2021 (Annex.6) indicating his status as OBC (NCL),
however, in the list published by the respondents, relating to
provisional merit list, the name of the petitioner did not appear.
The respondents sought objections on the said list, wherein
the petitioner appeared on 08.02.2022 and produced an affidavit
pursuant to Circular dated 09.09.2015 inter alia indicating that he
was in possession of certificates dated 15.11.2019 and
07.09.2021 and in terms of Circular dated 09.09.2015, the validity
of the certificate would be for three years and, therefore, the
petitioner may be treated as OBC (NCL). However, when the
respondents have not taken any steps in this regard, the present
petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Circular
dated 09.09.2015 (Annex.11) made submissions that an OBC
(NCL) certificate once issued, would be valid for three years, and
as the earlier certificate issued to the petitioner is of dated
15.11.2019, alongwith affidavit the same was sufficient and
therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard is not
justified. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Kailash
Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2505/2022 and connected matters decided on 23.02.2022.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made
submissions that thought the petitioner has produced two OBC
(NCL) certificates, the affidavit produced, was not as required
under the Circular dated 09.09.2015. Even if the same is not in
the format, the requirements of such affidavit also have not been
fulfilled and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
(3 of 4) [CW-3891/2022]
I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
The facts, which are not in dispute, wherein the petitioner on
08.02.2022 pursuant to calling objections, has produced two
certificates along with affidavit. The Circular/Guidelines dated
09.09.2015, which are relevant for the present purpose, reads as
under:
"fØehys;j esa ugha gksus laca/kh izek.k&i= ,d o"kZ ds fy,
ekU; gksxk ,d ckj fØehys;j esa ugha gksus dk izek.k&i= tkjh
gksus ds mijkUr vxj izkFkhZ vkxkeh o"kZ esa Hkh fØehys;j esa ugha
gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mlls lR;kfir 'kiFk&i= ¼ifjf'k"B&M½
ysdj iwoZ esa tkjh izek.k&*i= dks gh eku fy;k tkos ,slk
vf/kdre rhu o"kZ rd fd;k tk ldrk gSA"
A perusal of the above would reveal that what has been
indicated is that an NCL certificate would be valid for one year, and
the same can be used for maximum three years on producing an
affidavit (Annexure-M with the Guidelines). The petitioner, though
sought to comply with the requirements of the Circular dated
09.09.2015 in producing the affidavit, apparently for lack of
knowledge/guidance in this regard has not indicated the relevant
requirements as per Annexure-M. A perusal of the affidavit filed
by the petitioner, indicates that he has simply reproduced the
stipulation made in the Circular dated 09.09.2015 regarding the
certificate being valid for three years.
It is true that the affidavit filed does not comply with the
requirements of the Circular dated 09.09.2015, however, the
intention of the petitioner in producing the affidavit cannot be
doubted. The intention all along has been to claim benefit of the
fact that the certificate with the aid of affidavit could be valid for
three years. This Court in the case of Kailash Kumar (supra) inter
(4 of 4) [CW-3891/2022]
alia came to the conclusion that production of the requisite in
terms of the Circular dated 09.09.2015, on 08.02.2022 would
suffice and the candidates would be entitled to the benefit of the
Circular.
In view thereof, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The respondents are directed to take into consideration the
candidature of the petitioner based on his OBC (NCL) certificate
alongwith affidavit filed by him and in case the petitioner is found
otherwise eligible and falls in the merit, to include his name in the
final select list/final merit list to be issued by the respondents.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
209-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
