Pradeep Kumar Sen vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4441 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2581/2022

Pradeep Kumar Sen S/o Sajjan Lal Sen, aged about 31 Years, (OBC-Ph Category), Resident of Village Ajgari, Post Rampali, Tehsil Sarwar, District Ajmer; Presently residing at Ramdev Guest House, Mandore, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Ayurved and Indian Medicine Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.

3. Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Karwar, Nagaur Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) through its Registrar.

Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2588/2022 Gajendra Singh Meena S/o Shri Pooran Chand Meena, Aged bout 31 Years, Resident of V/P Ratiyapura, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli; Presently residing at 1028, Nehru Park Railway Awas Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.) Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Ayurved and Indian Medicine Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.

3. Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Karwar, Nagaur Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) through its Registrar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG.

Mr. Suniel Purohit, R-3.

                          (2 of 6)                      [CW-2581/2022 & 2588/2022]


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

22/03/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against non-inclusion of their names in the provisional

merit list issued by the respondents for appointment on the post

of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade pursuant to Advertisement

dated 17.06.2021.

It is inter-alia submitted by the counsel for the petitioners

that the petitioners were in possession of their caste certificates

being Other Backward Class ('OBC') and Scheduled Tribe ('ST')

respectively issued for applying for appointment to the post under

the Government of India, which were produced by them at the

time of document verification. Besides the above, petitioner-

Pradeep Kumar Sen produced certificate dated 25.10.2021 issued

in relation to his being OBC in the State list also, however, their

names did not appear in the provisional merit list despite having

marks higher than the cutoff meant for their category.

Response to the writ petition has been filed by the

respondents inter-alia indicating that the petitioners had not

produced the certificate issued before the cutoff date in terms of

Clause 9.2 of the advertisement, which was 23.07.2021 and

therefore, the certificate produced by petitioner, Pradeep Kumar

Sen dated 25.10.2021 could not be taken into consideration.

Further submissions were made that the certificates meant for

applying for appointment to the post under the Government of

India, as produced by the petitioners, could not be taken into

consideration for the purpose of grant of appointment under the

State Government and on that count, the candidature of the

(3 of 6) [CW-2581/2022 & 2588/2022]

petitioners under their claimed categories, has been rightly

denied.

Submissions were made that the certificate of the Central

Government relied on by the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen was

dated 11.01.2019 and the same even otherwise for his claim as

belonging to NCL category was of no use and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for any consideration.

Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the

certificate issued for appointment to post under Government of

India can very well be used for State Government services,

inasmuch as the caste of petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen, is OBC in

both the lists i.e. in Central and State and as such, the denial by

the respondents is not justified. It was claimed that the petitioner

had produced an affidavit dated 08.10.2021 during the course of

document verification, filed as Annex.13, to indicate that he

continues to be under the NCL category since the year 2019 and

therefore, in terms of Circular dated 09.09.2015, the candidature

of the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the document (Annex.13) sought to be relied on by the petitioner

is a made up document, which was not produced during the

document verification. Submissions have also been made that

there is no reference of said document in the petition as filed, and

only by way of an additional affidavit, the document has been

produced. Submissions have also been made that once the

certificate dated 11.01.2019 itself cannot be taken into

consideration, filing of affidavit is of no use and therefore, the

petition filed by petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen deserves to be

rejected.

(4 of 6) [CW-2581/2022 & 2588/2022]

Reliance was placed on the judgment in Gaurav Sharma vs.

State of U.P. & Ors. : Special Appeal No.156 of 2017 decided on

04.05.2017 by Full Bench of Allahabad High Court.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The petitioners have produced the certificates, which are

titled as 'Form of Certificate to be produced by Other Backward

Classes applying for appointment to posts under the Government

of India' and 'Scheduled Tribe Central Certificate', respectively.

As to whether the said certificates can be used for State

services, the issue has been considered by the Full Bench of

Allahabad High Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra),

wherein the Court answered the issue referred to it, whether there

exists any irreconcilable difference or repugnancy between the

norms fixed by the Union and State Governments with regard to

certification of creamy layer? If not, its effect. Which has been

answered as under:

"Insofar as Question No. 3 is concerned, we hold that although there is no repugnancy in the norms fixed by the Union and State Government, the same would have no favourable impact upon the eligibility of a candidate unless he also furnishes a certificate evidencing him as belonging to the OBC category as recognised and identified by the State."

The Full Bench, came to the above conclusion, based on the

fact that list of castes under the OBC in Central and the State list,

are different and therefore, a specific State certificate in this

regard has to be produced and merely because a caste is included

in both the lists, cannot be a reason enough for using the

certificate meant for Central services for the State services.

Besides the above, the Circular dated 09.09.2015 relied on by the

(5 of 6) [CW-2581/2022 & 2588/2022]

counsel for the petitioner filed as Annex.1 with the writ petition

also, inter-alia prescribes under Clause (c) various forms and

under (iv) indicates the form for appointment under the Central

Government and therefore, once a specific form for specific

purpose is provided, the same cannot be used inter-changeable.

In view of above fact situation, insofar as the case of

petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sen is concerned, as the certificate

dated 25.10.2021 produced by him is issued after the cutoff date

and the certificate dated 11.01.2019 besides being well before the

date of recruitment and issued for appointment to post under the

Government of India and the affidavit claims to have been filed

with the respondents, has not been produced with the

respondents, he is not entitled to any relief.

However, the petitioner- Pradeep Kumar Sen would be

entitled to be considered in the category of a General PH, if at any

stage, he falls in the merit.

So far as the case of petitioner Gajendra Singh Meena is

concerned, who has claimed his status as ST, his case would fall in

a different category, inasmuch as insofar as SC and ST are

concerned, they're recognized for both State and Central lists and,

therefore, recognition under one list/certificate issued for Central

services can very well be utilized for the State services also.

The Allahabad High Court in Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. &

Ors. : Writ A. No.15525 of 2018 decided on 25.7.2018, after

referring to the judgment in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra)

distinguished the said judgment and came to the conclusion that

in case of SC, the certificate issued for Central services would be

valid. The same analogy would apply to the case of ST.

(6 of 6) [CW-2581/2022 & 2588/2022]

In view of said fact situation, petitioner- Gajendra Singh

Meena is entitled to the relief.

Consequently, while CWP No.2581/2022 is dismissed, CWP

No.2588/2022 is allowed. The respondents are directed to

consider the candidature of the petitioner- Gajendra Singh Meena

as 'ST' and in case he is otherwise eligible and has obtained marks

higher than the cutoff, his name may be included in the final

select list.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 48 & 49-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)