HULSI YADAV Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the appointing authority is justified in refusing appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she has failed to produce the live caste certificate on or before the date of selection / date of appointment?

(2.) The aforesaid question of law arises for consideration on the following factual backdrop: -

(3.) Janpad Panchayat, Lundra had issued an advertisement for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 11/1/2008 and last date for submission of applications was 9/2/2008. Pursuant to the advertisement so issued, the petitioner and respondent No.6, both, appeared in the selection process along with other candidates in OBC category. The petitioner's temporary caste certificate was valid up to 2/6/2008 and it expired in the course of recruitment process and ultimately, on 29/5/2009, merit list was issued and on 30/5/2009, respondent No.6 and two other candidates were appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- III. Though the petitioner was more meritorious, but she was not having the permanent caste certificate / temporary live caste certificate as on 30/5/2009, however, by letter dtd. 5/6/2009, written by the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lundra, it has been stated that if the candidates submit temporary caste certificate and will not submit permanent caste certificate till the date of counselling, they may not be restrained from appointment and they be granted time to submit permanent caste certificate within 15 days. The petitioner was issued permanent caste certificate on 6- 6-2009 and by that time appointment order of respondent No.6 was issued on 30/5/2009 itself leading to filing of appeal by the petitioner and three other aggrieved persons before the Collector, District Surguja and ultimately, the Additional Collector vide order dtd. 28/4/2010 (Annexure P-2) allowed the appeal and set-aside the appointment order of respondent No.6 and two others holding that the petitioner and three other candidates are more meritorious than respondent No.6. The order of the Additional Collector was challenged by respondent No.6 and two others by filing three separate writ petitions before this Court and this Court by order dtd. 22/2/2013 (Annexure P-3) allowed the writ petitions setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and holding that it was not a speaking order, and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector to decide the same afresh after hearing both the parties. On 30/7/2013 (Annexure P-4), the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja passed order dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioner and three others, which was affirmed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, by the order impugned dtd. 13/7/2015 (Annexure P-1) in further appeal preferred by the petitioner leading to filing of this writ petition.