Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 2117
2012 (1) PLJR 345
PATNA HIGH COURT
Navin Sinha, J.
Vachanendra Kumar Deepam S/o Dr. Diwakar
vs.
The Bihar Staff selection
CWJC No. 8329 of 2010
Decided on: 13.10.2011
Compliance with the specific requirements outlined in the advertisement for caste-based appointment is crucial, and deviation from these requirements may result in the dismissal of the applicant's claim.
Headnote:
Creamy Layer Certificate - Caste-based Appointment - The court dismissed the application of a petitioner seeking appointment as an I.T.I. instructor in the Drawing Mechanical Trade, as the petitioner's creamy layer certificate issued by the S.D.O. was not accepted, contrary to the advertisement requirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of I.T.I. instructor and claimed to belong to a backward caste, seeking appointment based on this claim. The denial of appointment led to the petitioner's grievance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's application and dismissed it, citing the requirement in the advertisement for the submission of the creamy layer certificate from the office of the District Magistrate, which the petitioner failed to comply with.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of belonging to a backward caste and the acceptance of the creamy layer certificate issued by the S.D.O. for caste-based appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the advertisement requirement specifying the submission of the creamy layer certificate from the office of the District Magistrate, as well as a Division Bench decision, to support the dismissal of the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application, upholding the requirement for the submission of the creamy layer certificate from the office of the District Magistrate for caste-based appointment.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Staff Selection Commission.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of I.T.I. instructor in the Drawing Mechanical Trade and is aggrieved by the denial of appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner from the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner has wrongly been considered as a general category candidate. He belongs to the backward caste and is entitled to be considered accordingly. He had submitted the necessary creamy layer certificate from the S.D.O. which should suffice.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General-1 submits that the advertisement clearly stipulated that the creamy layer certificate was required to be submitted from the office of the District Magistrate only. Any certificate submitted from the S.D.O. was not competent. He relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in L.P.A. No.1250/11 * to submit that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim contrary to the advertisement that his creamy layer certificate issued by the S.D.O. should be accepted.
5. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.
