Namrata Chahar D/O Shri Mohan Lal ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3896 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2968/2020

Namrata Chahar D/o Shri Mohan Lal Chahar, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of Vijaypura, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.      The   State      Of     Rajasthan,          Through       Its   Secretary,
        Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan,
        Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3.      Mission Director, Nrhm, State Health Family Welfare
        Institution (Sifu) Near Doordarshan Kendra, Jhalana,
        Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh Kharra with Mr. D.N. Fageria.

For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

18/05/2022

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has been considered and decided by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter

of Mohan Lal Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1547/2020) where in on 13.02.2020,

the following order was passed:-

"1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging rejection of petitioner's candidature as an OBC-NCL Candidate.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for the post of Nurse Gr.II, pursuant to advertisement dated 13.05.2016 as an OBC-NCL Candidate.

(2 of 7) [CW-2968/2020]

3. In support of his claim, while submitting online application form on 02.07.2018, the petitioner had uploaded a certificate dated 18.06.2018 of OBC-NCL Category.

4. On the basis of the requisite qualification and fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was called for document verification vide communication dated 17.06.2019, while showing his category as OBC-NCL.

5. The petitioner was called as an OBC-NCL Category candidate. When the petitioner appeared for document verification, he brought with him a certificate dated 02.07.2019, considering that he should go with a recent certificate. The petitioner had no idea that said certificate shows him to be OBCCreamy Layer Candidate.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that when he got the above referred caste certificate issued, due to inadvertent error on the part of the concerned Tehsildar/e-Mitra, his category has been shown as OBC-Creamy Layer, whereas petitioner is/was belonging to OBC-Non-Creamy Layer Category.

7. Since the petitioner's caste certificate was that of OBCCreamy Layer, his candidature as such was denied and the petitioner was not included in the list of selected candidates belonging to OBC -NCL, despite having secured more marks than the cut-off of his category.

8. The petitioner thereafter moved a representation dated 13.01.2020 to the Additional Director, Administration, Medical & Health Services, inter alia, pointing out that the certificate which he brought during the course of document verification wrongly shows petitioner's category as OBC-Creamy Layer, whereas he hails from OBC-NCL Category and he has in his possession a certificate dated 18.06.2018 of OBC-NCL.

9. In the period interregnum, petitioner secured another certificate dated 30.01.2020, which shows his category as OBC- NCL. By way of the representation aforesaid, petitioner requested the respondents to consider his candidature as OBC-NCL.

10. However, petitioner's request was not heeded to and his name was not shown in the final merit list.

11. Above noted facts propelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present writ petition, challenging the action

(3 of 7) [CW-2968/2020]

of the respondents, in not addressing his genuine grievance and considering his candidature as an OBC-NCL Candidate.

12. Mr. Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that while submitting the application form on 02.07.2018, petitioner did have a certificate dated 18.06.2018 in his favour, which indisputably showed his category as OBC-NCL. He argued that as per the terms of the advertisement and as per the relevant rules, petitioner's candidature has to be considered on the date of furnishing application form or on the last date of submitting application form. According to learned counsel, on the date of furnishing application form, the petitioner's status as OBC-NCL cannot be disputed.

13. It was further argued that during the course of document verification, the petitioner, in an over-anxiety, carried with him a fresh/new certificate, which for his misfortune, contained his wrong status as creamy layer. He argued that merely because a wrong certificate has been produced during the document verification, the petitioner's status of OBC-NCL cannot be disputed, which is otherwise evident from the certificates dated 18.06.2018 and 30.01.2020.

14. Mr. Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed heavy reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 28.01.2020, rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [SBCWP No. 276/2020]

15. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, opposing the petitioner's contention, submitted that the petitioner was required to bring with him the same certificate, which was uploaded while submitting the application form and in this regard he invited Court's attention towards para No. 1(8) of the advertisement.

16. It was also argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner ought to have verified the certificate before going for document verification. He added that petitioner's caste certificate, which he had produced during the course of document verification showed his category as OBCCreamy Layer and as such, his candidature could not have been considered as OBC-NCL. Petitioner himself is to be thanked for his negligence, submitted Mr. Mehta.

(4 of 7) [CW-2968/2020]

17. It was also argued that the facts of the present case are not identical to the facts involved in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), inasmuch as in Rajesh Kumar's case, the concerned candidate had two certificates of the same date - one issued for State Services showed his category as OBC-Creamy Layer, whereas the other certificate issued for Central Services showed his category as OBC-NCL and it was that fact which prevailed, when the writ petition filed by Rajesh Kumar was allowed by this Court; whereas in the present petitioner's case, it is only one certificate showing him to be OBC-Creamy Layer.

18. Heard.

19. In considered opinion of this Court, a candidature has to be determined on the basis of facts relating to his falling in a particular category, as on the date of furnishing application form. So far as reservation to OBC-NCL is concerned, since it is coextensive with the candidate's financial status, a candidate's certificate within a year of the date of application form alone is required to be considered. The condition of the advertisement in para No.3 unequivocally shows that a candidate is required to have an OBC Certificate issued within a year of the date of the advertisement.

20. In the facts of the present case, having regard to the petitioner's certificate dated 18.06.2018, this Court has no reason to doubt petitioner's status of an OBC-NCL Candidate.

21. May be, due to over-zealousness, the petitioner has procured and produced a rather recent certificate during the course of document verification, however, the same was in any case liable to be ignored. The respondents must have asked the petitioner to produce the same certificate which was uploaded, i.e. the certificate dated 18.06.2018. 22. A gainful reference of the observations made in Rajesh Kuamr's case (supra) will not be out of place and are being reproduced hereinfra:

"14. ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner's entitlement as OBC - non-creamy layer candidate is beyond any shred of doubt. He cannot be penalized for the fault of the authority who had issued an incorrect certificate. His fault was only that he did not check the certificate when it was issued.

(5 of 7) [CW-2968/2020]

15. In the opinion of this Court, stripping the petitioner of his selection is too harsh and disproportionate penalty for his small slip-up of not verifying the caste certificate before hand. "

23. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the present writ petition succeeds.

24. The respondents are directed to consider petitioner's candidature in OBC- NCL Category.

25. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 24.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m. along with original certificate dated 18.06.2018. In case the original certificate is produced, the respondent No.3 shall consider his candidature in accordance with the certificate and shall place the petitioner at an appropriate place in the merit list/select list. Consequence to follow and needful be done on or before 31.03.2020.

26. In case, for some reason or the other, respondent No.3 unable to verify petitioner's documents on 24.02.2020, he shall intimate the petitioner on his cell- phone.

27. The stay application stands disposed of accordingly."

Counsel further submits that the respondents-State filed D.B.

Special Appeal Writ No.374/2021 against the judgment dated

13.02.2020 and the same was also dismissed by the Division

Bench of this court at Principal seat Jodhpur vide order dated

07.01.2022.

The order dated 07.01.2022 reads as under:-

"This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1547/2020.

Brief facts are as under :

The State Government had issued advertisement on 30.05.2018 for filling up the posts of Nurse Grade-II. The last date for applying was 03.07.2018. The respondent herein-original petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement on 02.07.2018 as O.B.C.

(6 of 7) [CW-2968/2020]

non-creamy layer candidate. Along with the application, the petitioner had also produced a copy of the certificate dated 18.06.2018 showing that he belongs to noncreamy layer.

Upon completion of selection process, the authorities published the list of selected candidates. The name of the petitioner was included in the same. The stage, therefore, arrived for document verification. According to the petitioner, thinking that the correct certificate of non-creamy layer would be needed, he obtained a fresh certificate of belonging to non-creamy layer dated 13.01.2020 and produced before the authorities at the time of document verification.

On the ground that the petitioner had not produced the certificate of belonging to non-creamy layer of the relevant period, his case was considered as non-O.B.C. candidate. He, therefore, filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by observing that it may be that the certificate of belonging to non- creamy layer had to be of the relevant period, nevertheless, if the petitioner had out of over anxiety, produced the latest certificate, his candidature should not be rejected only on that ground. The learned Single Judge consequently allowed the writ petition and asked the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3 on 24.02.2020 along with original certificate dated 18.06.2018. If the same was produced, it was directed that the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered on such basis in terms of the select list. We do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. The petitioner had produced a copy of certificate dated 18.06.2018 at the time of making application, which showed that he belonged to non-creamy layer. If it was out of misunderstanding that he produced a certificate of the later period, which also shows that he belongs to non-creamy layer, the department ought not to have rejected his candidature altogether as OBC candidate. If at all the department should have insisted on collecting the original certificate dated 18.06.2018 and if the petitioner had refused to produce the same, his candidature should have been rejected as OBC candidate.

(7 of 7) [CW-2968/2020]

In the result, while disposing of this appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not disturbed. We are informed that the petitioner had already produced the original certificate before the respondent No. 3, the said authority shall therefore proceed to offer the appointment to the petitioner as per his position in the select list. However, as long as this is done within a period of two months from today, there would be no question of back wages or service to be reckoned for the past period.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the

submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of in

view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of Mohan Lal Vishnoi

(supra).

The respondents are directed to consider the case of the

petitioner in OBC-NCL category and pass consequential order.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

MG/63

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)