VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPEETH Vs. GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicants/Original Respondents No.1 and 2 sought review under Sec. 114 and Order XLVIIof the Code of Civil Procedure of the Judgment and Order dtd. 13/10/2021 passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No.7281 of 2020.

(2.) Before adverting to the issues raised in this Review Petition, the facts of the original Writ Petition No.7281 of 2020, in brief, were that the Review Applicants (hereinafter, referred to as "the Applicants") had published the advertisement for the post of Senior Clerk in 2014. After following the due procedure laid down in the advertisement, the Applicants published the results of the examination. The Original Petitioner (hereinafter, referred to as "the Petitioner"), had secured 184 marks and was called for document verification. When he went to the Applicant's office, he was told that he had not supplied the Non Creamy Layer certificate (hereinafter, referred to as "NCL") for 2014. He had submitted a photostat copy of the said certificate with the application to the present Applicant. However, it was alleged against the Applicant that they had misplaced the said document and blamed them for not supplying the said certificate. He had a photostat copy of the said certificate with him. He was told that he would not be selected since he did not produce the certificate. He pursued the issue with Respondent No.2 by representation. He had a case that he had a NCL certificate from 2009 to 2023. The Petitioner had misplaced the original, but its photostat copy is with him. Upon the said photostat copy, it may be verified that the competent authority has issued the certificate. He had submitted an affidavit before the competent authority, stating that NCL certificate vide outward No. MRC-81/TITWI/0715 dtd. 13/11/2013 was valid upto 2016. The said certificate was issued to him from the Tahsil office on 13/11/2013, as per the record of the outward Sec. . He alleged manipulation in the recruitment process because the next candidate to the Petitioner, also had the same marks, and he was trying to pressurize to quit the recruitment process in exchange for money. He had the call recording which shows the influence of the next candidate. He also alleged that the recruitment committee and the next candidate were hand in gloves. Under these premises, he had prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the like nature against present Petitioner No.2, to accept the photostat copy of NCL certificate and affidavit of the Petitioner. He also sought a direction against present Petitioner No.2, not to declare him ineligible in the document verification process for want of the original NCL certificate.

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed affidavit-in-reply. They had denied the Petitioner's case. When the Petitioner/present Respondent No.1 was asked to produce the NCL certificate issued after 1/4/2014, therefore, he was unable to produce the same during the document verification and made allegations against the committee that the committee had misplaced his original NCL certificate of the year 2014. Subsequently, he forwarded the photostat copy of the NCL certificate, which could not be considered as the candidate was expected to produce the same at the time of document verification. He made a false allegation against the University. The Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed as Respondent No.1 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. As per the advertisement, Respondent No.1/Petitioner was to produce a NCL certificate on or after 1/4/2014.