NARENDRA HASMUKH PARMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Office Superintendent or Assistant Head Clerk without insisting for non-creamy layer certificate in Gujarati language only and to direct the respondent to consider the non creamy layer caste certificate issued by the competent authority in English language as valid.

(2.) Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Computer Operator on 20/10/2001 under the respondent Corporation. The petitioner is a commerce graduate and has obtained an MCA degree. He belongs to the 'Valand' caste. On 30/12/2015 an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of (I) Assistant Senior Clerk (II) Assistant Head Clerk and (III) Office Superintendent. Being eligible to apply, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Head Clerk as well as Office Superintendent in the reserved category. Admittedly, according to the petitioner he was not only qualified in terms of educational qualification but also was within the age prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner on 2/12/2018 was called for examination and he appeared for both the examinations for the post of Assistant Head Clerk as well as Office Superintendent. On being successful in the examinations, he was called for document verification. The petitioner appeared on 17/6/2019 for the document verification for the post of Office Superintendent. At that time, along with the documents produced, the petitioner produced a certificate of Scheduled Caste - non creamy layer certificate dtd. 7/1/2016 to show that the petitioner belongs to non creamy layer. The certificate was issued in English language. According to the petitioner, the advertisement stipulated that the certificate for the two posts be produced in Gujarati language, however, the petitioner having produced certificate in English, he has not been considered for appointment to either of the posts. Representations were made by the petitioner that it was only by inadvertence that he had produced the certificate in english language which can be considered as valid. According to the petitioner at the relevant time 60 posts were vacant in the cadre of Office Superintendent.

(3.) Mr. J.B. Dastoor, learned advocate for the petitioner during the course of submissions would submit that it is not apt for the respondent Corporation to insist for certificate only in Gujarati language when the certificate in English is also one which reflects the status of the petitioner. Together with the rejoinder, the petitioner has produced decisions of this court wherein a identical question of production of certificates in english language was considered. He would invite the attention of the court to the decision rendered in SCA No. 10492 of 2015 dtd. 2/7/2015 and another decision of this court rendered in SCA No. 15745 of 2015 dated 21 and 23/10/2015.