IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
Sachin – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through its (Ministry of Home Affairs), Directorate General & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2296 of 2017
Decided On : 09-10-2017
OBC - Caste Certificate Format - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001) - The court discussed the requirement of submitting a caste certificate in the prescribed format by the Union of India, the relevance of the certificate issued by the State Government, and the necessity of a non-creamy layer declaration in the prescribed format. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the format prescribed by the Union of India and the significance of the non-creamy layer declaration in determining OBC status.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, participated in a selection process that required a caste certificate in the prescribed format by the Union of India. The petitioner possessed two caste certificates, one of which was not in the required format. Despite attempts to rectify the issue, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the medical examination due to tattoo marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature and that of other similarly situated candidates, emphasizing the importance of complying with the prescribed format for caste certificates and the non-creamy layer declaration. The petitioner was given an opportunity to supply the necessary certificate to the respondent within a specified timeframe.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with the prescribed format for caste certificates by the Union of India, the relevance of the certificate issued by the State Government, and the significance of the non-creamy layer declaration in determining OBC status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the format prescribed by the Union of India for caste certificates and the necessity of a non-creamy layer declaration in the prescribed format to determine OBC status. The court also highlighted the need for candidates to comply with the specified requirements within the stipulated timelines.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, and the court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature and that of other similarly situated candidates, provided the position had not become irreversible. The petitioner was given a timeframe to supply the necessary certificate to the respondent, and the decision was to be made within 10 weeks.
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Heard finally with the consent of Shri. S.A. Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. S.A. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.
2. This petitioner belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC) category participated in selection process in terms of advertisement published in January 2015. Clause 4(C) expected him to give caste certificate in proforma prescribed by Union of India and in no other format. The said clause also clarifies that such certificate should have been obtained within three years before the closing date i.e. 23.02.2015. It also clarified that it had decided to accept OBC certificate, in the prescribed format, issued after the closing date for receipt of application but issued on or before the date of the document verification. It is not in dispute that the documents are to be verified at the time of Detailed Medical Examination (DME) which in this matter was conducted on 12.05.2016.
3. The petitioner before this Court has two caste certificates. First one is dated 26.07.2007 and later is dated 04.10.2014. Those certificates are identical but the nomenclature of format is different. The certificate dated 26.07.2007 being more than three years old, is not very relevant. The later certificate is dated 04.10.2014. It is issued by the Competent Authority and the format thereof is prevalent in the State of Maharashtra, as per rules framed under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001). On 12.05.2016, the petitioner learnt that this format was not, as required by the Union of India, he, therefore, assured to supply necessary certificate in prescribed format by 01.06.2016. However, he was declared unsuccessful in Medical examination and, therefore, he did not comply with his undertaking. He was declared unsuccessful in medical examination because of tatoo marks and in Review Medical Examination, he has been cleared. The review Medical examination has been conducted on 24.08.2016. Before that i.e. on 20.08.2016, he got the necessary caste certificate in the format prescribed by the Union of India.
4. In this situation, on 02.08.2017, we called upon the respondents to produce original documents relating to selection process of the petitioner. Today, the original documents were made available for perusal of this Court.
5. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instructions in the advertisement are very clear and still the petitioner did not submit the caste certificate in proforma/format prescribed by the Union of India. He points out that said format also contains a declaration that the holder of caste certificate does not belong to creamy layer. This certification or clause is missing in the format used by the petitioner or then prescribed by the State Government. He points out that though the petitioner was aware of mandatory nature, he deliberately did not supply it. On 12.05.2016, one more chance was given to him but again he did not produce that certificate in prescribed format. He, therefore, requests this Court to dismiss the present petition.
6. According to Shri Mohta, learned counsel, the format in which certificate is issued, is prescribed by the State Government under a valid law and, therefore, that format could not have been rejected. He submits that the respondents nowhere objected to absence of non creamy layer certificate and the case of the petitioner has been processed as if he belongs to OBC. He contends that in unfortunate situation, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in DME and hence the petitioner lost all his hopes. However, when he got intimation of Review Medical Test, he obtained necessary certificate and then attempted to produce it at the time of Review Medic
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.