DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn off the unnecessary details, the essential facts for adjudication of the present controversy are that the writ petitioner in response to an advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of "Librarian", submitted his application for consideration of his candidature. However, during the scrutiny of the documents annexed with the application submitted by the petitioner, it was revealed that the Certificate indicating the petitioner belonging to Other Backward Class (for short 'OBC') Category was of a date prior to 15th of April, 1996 and did not contain the details with regard to "creamy layer" as per scales of pay as detailed out in the order dated 6th of December, 1997, the writ petitioner was called upon to make good the deficiency by furnishing the required Certificate with complete details of 15th of December, 1997, failing which the Certificate will not be entertained in order to cure the deficiency. It is further the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 6th of December, 1997 was served upon him on 13th of December, 1997. Moreover, 13th and 14th of December, 1997 being gazetted holidays; it was not practically possible for him to submit the required Certificate on or before 15th of December, 1997 and also submitted an affidavit to this effect. However, the Certificate as required in the form specified in the proforma was submitted on 22nd of December, 1997, issued by the Tehsildar on 19th of December, 1997. On 22nd December, 1997, a list of selected candidates was published concluding the recruitment process. Thus, the writ petitioner was deprived of consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Librarian while according appointment to the candidates lower in the merit. The representation submitted by the petitioner evoked no response and therefore, approached this Court. The state-respondents in response to the notice of the writ application have filed their counter-affidavit repelling the claim of the writ petitioner pleading that the petitioner did not submit the required Certificate declaring him to be in the category of 'OBC and specifically indicating that he was not included in the category of 'creamy layer' as required while inviting application from eligible candidates vide advertisement. Moreover, the petitioner did not respond to the registered letter dated 5th of December, 1995 whereby the Deputy Director, Secondary Education called upon the petitioner to submit the required Certificate in the office positively by 15th of December, 1997; failing which the Certificate would not be taken into consideration to adjudge his candidature.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, vehemently argued that the communication dated 5th of December, 1997 calling upon he petitioner to submit the required Certificate on or before 15th of December, 1997 was received on 13th of December, 1997, but in view of the fact that 13th and 14th of December, 1997 being gazetted holidays, it was not practically possible for the petitioner to submit the required Certificate. Be that as it may, the Certificate was obtained by the petitioner from the competent authority on 19th of December, 1997 and the same was submitted on 22nd of December, 1997. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment in response to the advertisement published for direct appointment to the post of Librarian.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. M.F. Baig, learned Deputy Government Counsel for the State-respondents reiterated the fact that the petitioner did not submit the required Certificate issued by the competent authority with a clear and unambiguous stipulation of the fact that his father and/or mother is/are not serving in the State Government in the pay scale No. 13 (Rs. 1640-2900). Further, in the instant case at hand, the father of the petitioner was working in the Education Department on the post of Teacher at the relevant time and therefore, the Certificate submitted by the petitioner on 22nd of December, 1997 was of no relevance. The petitioner's father was serving as Teacher and the petitioner did not furnish the required declaration and further, it was a case of concealment, while securing the Certificate from the Tehsildar, Udaipurwati. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was rightly not considered in the category of 'OBC', as the petitioner could not be treated to be a candidate not include in the category of 'creamy layer' and it is for this reason that the Certificate was not taken into consideration while considering the candidature of the petitioner in the category of 'OBC'.