SUNIL KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Advertisement Notification No. 4/2006 dated 29.12.2006, respondent No.5 invited applications for filling up of different posts in various departments. Advertised posts included 17 posts of drivers (Item No. 45) District Cadre Doda in the department of Health and Medical Education. Two, out of seventeen posts, were reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner claiming to be the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category, submitted his application form as such. The candidates were shortlisted for viva voce and the name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 263 of the short list issued on 4.4.2012. The petitioner claims that he was short listed in the Scheduled Caste category as is clearly indicated in column -6 against his name at serial No. 263. On 24.2.2013, provisional select list was published by respondent No.5 which did not include the name of the petitioner. In the note appended at the foot of the select list, it was indicated that two posts of driver in the category of Scheduled Caste had remained unfilled due to non availability of eligible candidates. The petitioner approached respondent No.5 to enquire into the reason for exclusion of his name. The petitioner was directed to check from the internet the reason of his exclusion. It is stated that from the internet, the petitioner found that his candidature had not been considered due to some discrepancy in the experience certificate produced by him and the discrepancy pointed out was that the certificate produced by him did not bare the date. The petitioner claims that he immediately responded and submitted fresh experience certificate after meeting out the discrepancy pointed out by the respondent No.5. The petitioner claims to have made representation to respondent No.4 but the same was not considered and final select list was published on 9.10.2013. Amongst two posts reserved for Scheduled Caste category, only one candidate was shown selected and the other was indicated to have remained unfilled due to non availability of eligible candidates.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved of his exclusion from the zone of consideration despite being eligible to be selected against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category, the petitioner has filed this petition. The basis of claim of the petitioner projected in the petition is that he had applied under Scheduled Caste category. He was short listed in Scheduled Caste category and was sure to be there in the select list in view of his merit but the respondents did not select him because of some discrepancy noticed in the experience certificate submitted by him. Grievance of the petitioner is that the certificate submitted by him was in consonance with the eligibility qualification prescribed in the Notification, yet as a matter of abundant caution, he obtained fresh certificate from the same employer and submitted it to respondent No. 5 well within time but his claim was yet not considered.

(3.) In response to the averments made in the writ petition, the respondents in their objections have taken a stand that the petitioner had applied under Scheduled Caste category by way of OMR Form and was thus, short listed for driving test and interview on the basis of entries made in OMR Form. The petitioner was, however, not selected due to the fact that he had submitted an experience certificate of eight years but the same did not mention from which date the candidate had acquired such experience. It is also stated in the objections that it is true that later on the petitioner submitted another experience certificate but the same was again without number and date and, therefore, it was not taken into consideration. It is also pleaded in the objections that respondent No. 5 issued notice on 12.6.2012 calling upon the candidates to submit experience certificate and on expiry of the period stipulated for submission of required certificate, the provisional select list was framed and published in local newspapers in Jammu/Srinagar inviting objections, if any, from the interested candidates. Since the petitioner failed to submit supporting documents to clarify the discrepancy pointed out, as such, he was not considered. In paragraph No. 5 of the objections, the respondents have also stated that not only the petitioner failed to submit proper experience certificate but also failed to produce caste certificate on the date of interview. It is stated that the interview for the post in question was conducted on 22.4.2012, whereas the caste certificate was submitted by the petitioner on 4.3.2013. It is thus, claimed that the petitioner had no right to be considered under Scheduled Caste category, though his consideration, in the selection process was in view of entries made in OMR Form. On these two pleas, the respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner.