SACHIDANAND Vs. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sachidanand is before this Court for direction to the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Excise Constable under the Freedom Fighter Quota.

(2.) As per record, this much is reflected that the petitioner had submitted application form under the reserved quota of freedom fighter for appointment on the post of Excise Constable on the basis of Advertisement dated 27th July, 2010 issued by the respondent no.3 i.e. Deputy Excise Commissioner, Agra. Consequently, the petitioner cleared in physical test and thereafter he has appeared in interview on 17.7.2010. The candidature of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that at the time of submission of form he has not appended the certificate pertaining to dependent of freedom fighter nor he has produced the same at the time of interview and as such his claim was considered in general category and he could not be selected .

(3.) In this background, Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate has drawn attention of the Court to application form of the petitioner annexed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit wherein at Column 11 the petitioner has shown that he belongs to freedom fighter quota and he has also mentioned in the application form that he has annexed the certificate of freedom fighter quota and as such the objection raised by the respondents that he has not annexed the requisite certificate nor has produced the same at the time of interview cannot sustain and as such they have erred in law in considering the candidature of the petitioner in general category and not according the benefit of freedom fighter quota. The petitioner had also placed reliance on the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein it had been indicated that two persons had applied under the dependent of freedom fighter but they were not found successful in the physical test and as such the vacancy was not filled up and as such it is submitted the petitioner's claim can be considered.