Validity of caste certificates for OBC non-creamy layer category and compliance with the certificate validity period.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the judgment dated 05.02.2020 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court whereby writ petition No. 1651/2020 preferred by the respondent-writ petitioner was accepted and the State was directed to consider her candidature in the OBC non-creamy layer for selection on the post of Female Health Worker (ANM) pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the Medical & Health Department on 18.06.2018.

2. The admitted position as is evinced from the record is that while filing the online application form, the respondent selected her category as being OBC non-creamy layer. However, the caste certificate dated 07.06.2019 which was filed along with her application form depicted that she hailed from the OBC creamy layer category.

3. Thus, after document verification, the respondent's name was not reflected in the final select list upon which, she submitted a complaint annexing therein another certificate dated 18.12.2019 wherein her category has shown to be OBC non-creamy layer. She also relied upon a certificate dated 21.03.2013 issued by the Tehsildar Chirawa affirming her status as OBC non-creamy layer. The learned Single Bench accepted the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner and relying on the judgment rendered by Single Bench in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 276/2020, decided on 28.01.2020) issued a writ to treat the writ-petitioner in OBC non-creamy layer and to consider her candidature accordingly by final order dated 05.02.2022 which is assailed in this intra-court appeal.

4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

5. Shri K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by Shri Rajat Arora Advocate urged that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal for the reason that the respondent had herself filed caste certificate dated 07.06.2019 wherein, it was clearly depicted that she belonged to the OBC creamy layer category.

6. The general condition No. 13 of the advertisement which reads as below, clearly indicates that the certificate of Backward Category/More Backward Category must have been issued in the previous one year from the last date of furnishing the application form:-

13- lkekU; funsZ'k %&

¼1½ vU; fiNM+k oxZ@vfr fiNM+k oxZ(MBC) dk uohure izek.k i= vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk ls 1 o"kZ iwoZ rd dh vof/k esa jktLFkku jkT; ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr izi= esa tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg,] ftlesa fØehys;j@ukWu&fØehys;j dh izfof"B Li"Vr vafdr gksuh pkfg,A bu oxksZ ds fØehys;j vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; ugha gSA lkekftd U;k; ,oa vf/kdkfjrk foHkkx ds fn'kk&funsZ'k la[;kF-11/SC, ST, OBC, SBC@tk-iz-i@lk-U;k- ,oa vf/k- foHk-@15@54159 fnukad 9@9@15 ds vuqlkj fØehys;j esa ugha gksus laca/kh izek.k i= ,d o"kZ ds fy;s ekU; gksxkA

7. The respondent filed the certificates (i) dated 21.03.2013, showing her status as OBC non-creamy layer (ii) dated 07.06.2019 showing her status as OBC creamy layer and (iii) Dated 18.12.2019 showing her status as OBC non-creamy layer.

8. Evidently thus, the respondent-writ petitioner was not entitled to be considered in the OBC non-creamy layer category because corrected certificate dated 18.12.2019 which she filed along with her complaint was not affirming her status for previous one year with reference to the last date of submitting the online application form. The older certificate which she submitted along with the writ petition was issued on 21.03.2013. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, could the appellant State consider the writ petitioner to be an OBC non-creamy layer candidate.

9. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kailash Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 279/2020, decided on 04.09.2020) wherein, it was held as below:-

"14. Indisputably, in the advertisement issued