Dr. Rajat Ghosh vs Tripura University (A Central ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 659 Tri

Tripura High Court

Dr. Rajat Ghosh vs Tripura University (A Central ... on 18 March, 2025

Author: Arindam Lodh

Bench: Arindam Lodh

                                    1




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                      WP(C) No.243 of 2024
Dr. Rajat Ghosh
S/o Late Hara Mohan Ghosh, resident of South Dhaleswar, near AOC, Lane
No.5, PO-Agartala College, Jogendranagar, PS-East Agartala, District-West
Tripura, Pin-799004.
                                                            ....Petitioner
                              Versus
1. Tripura University (a Central University)
Represented by its Registrar, having his office at Suryamaninagar, PO-
Suryamaninagar, PS-Amtali, Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799022.
2. The Registrar, Tripura University
Having his office at Suryamaninagar, PO-Suryamaninagar, PS-Amtali,
Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799022.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Tripura University (Chairman of Selection
Committee) having his office at Suryamaninagar, PO-Suryamaninagar, PS-
Amtali, Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799022.
4. The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee
Tripura University, Suryamaninagar, PO-Suryamaninagar, PS-Amtali,
Agartala, District-Tripura, Pin-799022 [Notice to be served by the
Respondent No.3, i.e., the Vice-Chancellor, Tripura University]

5. The Dean, Faculty of Science Tripura University, Suryamaninagar, PO-Suryamaninagar, PS-Amtali, Agartala, District-Tripura, Pin-799022

6. The University Grants Commission (UGC) Represented by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.

....Official Respondents

7. Dr. Jagdish Kumar Sahu, Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacy, Tripura University, Suryamaninagar, PO- Suryamaninagar, PS-Amtali, Agartala, District- Tripura, Pin-799022.

                                                     ....Private Respondent

For the Petitioner              :       Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
                                        Mr. D. Paul, Advocate
For the Respondents             :       Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate

Date of hearing                 :       07.01.2025

Date of delivery of Judgment & Order :        18.03.2025
Whether fit for reporting      :        Yes





             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

                       JUDGMENT & ORDER

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner, Dr.

Rajat Ghosh has sought for a direction for quashing/setting aside the

selection/appointment of respondent no.7 (private respondent), Dr. Jagdish

Kumar Sahu, who was appointed as an Associate Professor under the

respondents-Tripura University (a central University) through a selection

process.

2. Shortly stated, the fact of the case of the petitioner is that he

being an Assistant Professor under the Tripura University, the respondents

no. 1 to 6 herein, had applied for the post of Associate Professor in the

department of Pharmacy in terms of an advertisement issued by the

respondents-Tripura University on 19.07.2023. The said post was reserved

for Other Backward Classes-Non Creamy Layer [for short, OBC-NCL]

category of candidates to which he belongs to. Accordingly, call letter was

issued to the petitioner and thereafter, on 20.11.2023 verification of the

documents and personal interview of the aspirants for the said post was held.

The main grievance as ventilated in this writ petition is that the respondent

no.7, the private respondent herein, had been selected by the respondents-

University for the said post most illegally and arbitrarily as according to the

petitioner the respondent no.7 had no „valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL certificate

as per requisite prescribed format of the Government of India. Being upset

with such selection, the petitioner submitted representation through Right to

Information Act so as to know as to whether the private respondent had

submitted „valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL certificate on or before the cut-off date

of submitting his application for the said post. But, the respondents-

University denied to give any reply to the petitioner and rejected his

application compelling him to file the instant writ petition whereby and

whereunder he seeks a direction to quash the appointment order of private

respondent no.7 to the post of Associate Professor.

3. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. At the very outset, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for

the petitioner submitted that in Clause-13 of the "general instruction" of the

advertisement dated 19.07.2023, it is clearly prescribed that „applications for

the posts reserved for OBC/SC/ST/PWBD & EWS shall be supported by

valid/updated certificate in a Government of India (GOI) prescribed format

duly issued by the competent authority‟. It is further submitted that the last

date (cut-off date) for submission of online application form was 24.08.2023

upto 5.30 pm. It is clearly asserted in the petition that on the date of

interview (20.11.2023 as well as on the date of issuing appointment letter

(20.11.2023), the private respondent No.7 did not possess the

„valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL certificate for the year 2023-24 and after getting

appointment and at the time of joining, the respondent no.7 had managed to

submit his OBC-NCL certificate dated 12.12.2023. Mr. Roy Barman,

learned senior counsel has emphatically submitted that as per settled position

of law, a candidate/applicant must have to comply with all the conditions

and eligibility criteria as laid down in the advertisement and the documents

required must be furnished along with the application form on or before the

cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement. But, the respondent no.7 failed

to submit a „valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL certificate for the year 2023-2024 on

or before the cut-off date of submission of application. Therefore, according

to Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel since the private respondent no.7

did not possess the „valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL certificate for the year 2023-

2024, on the cut-off date, his candidature ought not to be considered for

selection to the post of Associate Professor in the department of Pharmacy

under the respondents-University as it amounts to a gross violation of

constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of

the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel, therefore, has prayed for

setting aside/quashing the impugned selection/appointment of the private

respondent to the post of Associate Professor in the department of Pharmacy

under the respondents-University.

5. Per contra, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the official respondents refuting the contentions made in the writ petition

submitted that there is no question of cancellation of appointment of the

private respondent as the appointment was made as per terms of

advertisement notification and other relevant instructions. Mr. Lodh, learned

counsel contended that the private respondent had uploaded his OBC-NCL

Certificate dated 13.08.2015 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue

Tehsil Gird, District-Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and Income Certificate

issued by Tehsilder, Gwalior at the time of submission of his online

application for the post of Associate Professor. Thereafter, the University

authority conducted interview and after scrutinizing the documents

submitted by the candidates, the private respondent was selected for the post

of Associate Professor in the Pharmacy department. Appointment letter was

issued to respondent no.7 and in consequence thereof, he submitted joining

report along with up-to-date OBC-NCL certificate issued on 12.12.2023. It

is reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.7 that the up-

to-date OBC-NCL certificate dated 12.12.2023 was issued in furtherance of

the OBC-NCL certificate dated 13.08.2015 which was in possession of the

private respondent. To support the contentions made in the counter affidavit

filed by respondent no.7, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submitted that for

obtaining up-to-date OBC-NCL certificate one should submit his/her

existing OBC-NCL certificate and income certificate of his/her father and on

receipt of the same, the up-to-date OBC-NCL certificate is issued by the

competent authority. In the instant case, at the time of submitting his

candidature, he had submitted his existing OBC-NCL certificate and income

certificate of his father along with the application form. The validity of

OBC-NCL certificate is for one year and as he could not collect the same

before submitting his application, but, he furnished the same at the time of

his joining. Thus, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel strongly urged that there was

no infirmity in considering the candidature of respondent no.7 for the post of

Associate Professor by the respondent-University and they have rightly

appointed the respondent no.7 (private respondent).

6. Having considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel

of the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, counter affidavits along

with the annexures thereto, I find that the last date of submission of

application was on 24.08.2023 and the eligibility of the candidates has to be

fulfilled on or before the last date of submission of application. On perusal

of the case record, I find that at the time of submission of application, the

petitioner submitted his OBC-NCL certificate which was issued on

03.08.2023. But, it is the contention of the respondents that the private

respondent could not submit his „updated/valid‟ OBC-NCL certificate at the

time of submission of his application before the cut-off date, however, he

was in possession of his existing certificate dated 13.08.2015. It appears that

the petitioner uploaded his existing OBC-NCL certificate dated 13.08.2015

issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Tehsil Gird, District-

Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh at the time of submission of his online

application. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the private respondent

did not have any „valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL certificate at the time of

submission of application through online which was required as per general

instructions, essential information and clarifications of the advertisement

[Annexure-5 to the writ petition] issued by the respondents-University.

7. In the instant case, the sole issue that arises before this court is

whether the appointment of the private respondent under OBC-NCL

category is liable to be quashed/set aside on the ground that the

„valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL category certificate was issued after expiry of the

cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement.

8. In Clause 13 of the advertisement, it is specifically mentioned

that applications for the posts reserved for OBC/SC/ST/PWBD& EWS shall

be supported by „valid/updated‟ certificate in a Govt. of India (GoI)

prescribed format duly issued by the competent authority.

9. My attention has been drawn to Office Memorandum

Mp/36011/1/2012-ESTT(Res.) dated 08.10.2015 issued by the Ministry of

Personnel , Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and

Training, Govt. of India. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the said

Office Memorandum may be reproduced here-in-below in extenso:

"No.36011/1/2012-Estt.(Res.) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training Establishment Reservation - I Section North Block, New Delhi-110 001 Dated the 8th October, 2015.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Reiteration of the instructions on verification of claims of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes for purpose of appointment to posts/services. The undersigned is directed to say that as per extant instructions where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) is unable to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he/she may be appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima-facie proof he/she is able to produce in support of his/her claim subject to his/her furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time. Instructions have been issued vide DoPT's letter No.36022/1/2007-Estt. (Res.) dated 20.3.2007 to the Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs for streamlining the system of verification of caste certificates so that unscrupulous non-SC/ST/OBC persons are prevented from securing jobs meant for SCs/ST/OBCs by producing false certificates. Timely and effective verification of caste status is necessary so that the benefit of reservation and other scheme of concessions etc. go only to the rightful claimants.

2. In this regard, attention is invited to the instructions contained in the following Office Memoranda/Orders issued by this Department from time to time. A copy each of the Office Memoranda is enclosed:-

(i) OM No. 36019/7/75-Estt. (SCT) dated 31.10.1975

(ii) OM No. 36011/16/80-Estt. (SCT) dated 27.02.1981

(iii) OM No. 36011/3/2005-Estt. (Res.) dated 09.09.2005

(iv) OM No. 36012/6/88-Estt. (SCT) dated 24.4.1990

3. Instances have been brought to the notice of this Department that despite the aforesaid instructions, the appointments of the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities are with-held/delayed due to pending caste certificates verification.

4. It is, therefore, reiterated that in the situation where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes is unable to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he/she may

be appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima-facie proof he/she is able to produce in support of his/her claim subject to his/her furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time and if there is genuine difficulty in his/her obtaining a certificate, the appointing authority should itself verify his/her claim through the District Magistrate concerned.

5. All Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring the contents of this O.M. to the notice of all concerned.

(G. Srinivasan) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India"

10. Having gone through the above Office Memorandum [for short,

OM], I find that when „a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC),

Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) is unable to

produce a Certificate from any of the provisional authorities, he/she may be

appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima facie proof he/she is

able to produce in support of his/her claim subject to his/her furnishing the

prescribed certificate within a reasonable time.‟

11. It is further mentioned in Para 3 of the said OM that „instances

have been brought to the notice of this Department that despite the aforesaid

instructions, the appointments of the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC

communities are with-held/delayed due to pending Caste Certificates

verification.‟

12. That apart, in Para 4 of the said OM, it is specifically

mentioned that „if there is genuine difficulty in his/her obtaining a

certificate, the appointing authority should itself verify his/her claim through

the District Magistrate concerned.‟

13. In the backdrop of essentialities in the advertisement published

by the respondents-University, in one sense, it appears to be correct to say

that the candidates ought to submit their „valid/updated‟ OBC-NCL

certificate before the cut-off date of submission of application. The

petitioner had been able to upload his up-dated OBC-NCL certificate issued

on 03.08.2023 i.e. before the cut-off date whereas, the private respondent

submitted his existing OBC-NCL certificate issued on 13.08.2015 at the time

of submission of his application through online. But, it is evident that on

being selected for the said post, the private respondent at the time of his

joining furnished his OBC-NCL certificate, issued on 12.12.2023 by the

competent authority. That means the private respondent submitted his

certificate after the cut-off-date.

14. The OM dated 08.10.2015 (supra) stipulates that if a candidate

belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other

Backward Classes (OBC) is unable to produce a Certificate from any of the

provisional authorities, he/she may be appointed provisionally on the basis

of whatever prima facie proof he/she is able to produce in support of his/her

claim subject to his/her furnishing the prescribed certificate within a

reasonable time.

15. From the above instructions, it is clear that a candidate aspiring

to participate in a selection process is not mandatorily required his

valid/updated caste certificate at the time of submission of his application.

However, he is required to furnish any document, which can prima facie

prove that he belongs to a particular caste. Even, such candidate may be

appointed provisionally subject to furnishing his/her caste certificate within

a reasonable time.

16. In the instant case, what is emerged that the private respondent

in consistent with OM dated 08.10.2015 has furnished his valid/updated

OBC-NCL certificate dated 12.12.2023 before the respondents-University

that has been issued by the competent authority in continuation/furtherance

of the certificate dated 13.08.2015 in favour him. Being satisfied with the

said certificate, the respondents-University selected the private respondent

and issued appointment letter in his favour for the post of Associate

Professor.

17. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the

time of argument placed reliance on the decision in Sudhir Singh & Ors.

Vrs. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/1190/2023: 2024(1)

SLR 435(SC) and in the State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan &

Anr., reported in (2021) 17 SCC 141.

18. I have gone through the said decisions and on perusal of the

same it appears that the facts of those cases are quite distinguishable from

the facts of the instant case.

19. In the context of the present case, I may gainfully refer to the

decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 15514/2023 & CM

APPL. 62139/2023, titled as Ravi Kumar Vrs. All India Institute of

Medical Sciences where the Court relying upon numerous decisions of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court, had observed that the candidature may not be

cancelled solely on account of submission of the OBC-NCL certificate issued

beyond the cut-off date, but within the extended time provided by the

respondent. In the concluding portion, the High Court had summarized the

law on the subject as under:

"89. Thus, from the discussion above, it is clear that the petitioner‟s OBC-NCL certificate dated 23.11.2023 ought to have been considered by the respondent and the requirement contained in the prospectus, specifying the time-frame for the OBC-NCL certificate to be between 06.11.2022 to 05.11.2023, is arbitrary.

90. The conclusions reached by the court are thus summarised below:

a. The insistence of the respondent upon the OBC-NCL certificate to have been issued between 06.11.2022 to 05.11.2023 is arbitrary and does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through the reservation of seats.

b. The requirement of an OBC-NCL certificate is fundamentally different from a technical/academic qualification. While the former is mere evidence of what already exists, the latter refers to the acquisition of a qualification.

c. In terms of Pushpa (supra), read with Ram Kumar Gijroya (SC), Ram Kumar Gijroya (DB), Mukesh Kumar Yadav (supra), Karn Singh Yadav (supra), the insistence by the respondent on the submission of the OBC-NCL certificate issued during the given cut-off date, is arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the object of reservation. Also, the candidature may not be cancelled solely on account of submission of the OBC-NCL certificate issued beyond the cut- off date, but within the extended time provided by the respondent.

d. As per Anil Kumar (supra), the cut-off date is to be construed in a manner favourable to the candidate, and not to nullify a fundamental right merely because the OBC-NCL certificate is being submitted post the cut-off date.

e. On facts, the petitioner‟s OBC-NCL certificate dated 23.11.2023 ought to have been accepted by the respondent and it is directed accordingly."

                                                                   JUDGE





SANJAY GHOSH      Date: 2025.03.19 14:46:49 +05'30'




Sanjay