SATYABHAMA TIWARI Vs. COMMISSIONER,REWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the writ petition is admitted in terms of the order dated 24.1.2014, but because of the direction issued on 3.12.2014, writ petition is listed today for final disposal at motion stage and is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the order dated 30 th September, 2008 passed in Appeal Case No.480/Appeal/2007 -08 by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and sending back the matter to the Collector, Rewa, with a direction to verify the caste certificate of the respondent No.6 and to pass fresh order. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the caste certificate was not produced by the respondent No.6 in valid form and, therefore, the additional marks were not to be assigned to her. The petitioner secured more meritorious marks than respondent No.6 and was accordingly appointed. Against such an order of appointment appeal was preferred before the Collector by the respondent No.6, which appeal was dismissed. Hence, a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa and the said appeal is allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the caste certificate should have been produced by the respondent No.6 alongwith her application as the selection was started in the month of February, 2007. However, the relevant caste certificate was not produced by the respondent No.6, which fact was specifically noted down by the committee and, therefore, she was not granted any additional marks for the said caste certificate. This aspect was rightly considered by the Collector in his order dated 10.12.2007 passed in the appeal of respondent No.6, but ignoring these facts, relying on the caste certificate so issued in the year 1990 in respect to respondent No.6, the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner, therefore, the said order is bad in law. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact remains that the respondent No.6 has obtained a caste certificate from the competent authority only on 9.10.2007, which was appended alongwith the memo of appeal preferred before the Collector and this shows that there was no valid caste certificate available with the respondent No.6 on the date when she made the application for appointment, and as such she was not entitled to the benefit of additional marks.