RAVI CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the respondents states that she has obtained instructions from the department as to the grounds for rejecting the petitioner's candidature to the post of a Sub Inspector pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.3.2015, published by the respondent No. 2/SSC, which are to the effect that the petitioner had submitted a belated OBC certificate. She clarifies that as per the notice issued by the respondent No. 2/SSC, the closing date for submitting the application form was 28.4.2015 and admittedly, the petitioner had submitted the said form in question on 19.12.2015. She adds that even the grace period of 180 days reckoned from the closing date fixed for receipt of applications granted to the petitioner as mentioned in the letter dated 26.11.2015 addressed to him, the said period would have expired by the end of October, 2015, whereas the petitioner had submitted the OBC certificate much after the said deadline. She elaborates that the petitioner had not even applied to the competent authority for obtaining an OBC certificate till as late as 10.12.2015, when he knew very well that the date of the interview was 19.12.2015.

(2.) At this stage, it has been inquired from counsel for the respondents as to whether the process of filling up the post of Sub Inspectors in the CAPF stands concluded, to which she states, on instructions, that the said process is already over. She clarifies that even if there would be a vacancy in the OBC category, it is too late in the day for considering the petitioner's candidature for the reason that the procedure of turning down the candidature of all such candidates who have failed to submit their OBC certificate within the stipulated timeline, has been applied uniformly to all the candidates and the respondents cannot adopt a pick and choose policy by giving the petitioner any special benefit even if there is any vacancy of a Sub Inspector still available in the OBC category.

(3.) We are inclined to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. The records reveal that the petitioner was all along aware of the procedure prescribed by the respondents for filling up the forms as set out in Rule 4(C) of the notice, which is reproduced herein below :