JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the non-inclusion of his name in the provisional merit list issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in terms of Advertisement dated 17.06.2021.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner applied pursuant to the Advertisement and indicated his category as 'OBC (NCL)'. The petitioner was called for document verification, wherein the petitioner produced a caste certificate dated 07.09.2021 (Annex.6) indicating his status as OBC (NCL), however, in the list published by the respondents, relating to provisional merit list, the name of the petitioner did not appear.

3. The respondents sought objections on the said list, wherein the petitioner appeared on 08.02.2022 and produced an affidavit pursuant to Circular dated 09.09.2015 inter alia indicating that he was in possession of certificates dated 15.11.2019 and 07.09.2021 and in terms of Circular dated 09.09.2015, the validity of the certificate would be for three years and, therefore, the petitioner may be treated as OBC (NCL). However, when the respondents have not taken any steps in this regard, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Circular dated 09.09.2015 (Annex.11) made submissions that an OBC (NCL) certificate once issued, would be valid for three years, and as the earlier certificate issued to the petitioner is of dated 15.11.2019, alongwith affidavit the same was sufficient and therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard is not justified. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Kailash Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2505/2022 and connected matters decided on 23.02.2022.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that thought the petitioner has produced two OBC (NCL) certificates, the affidavit produced, was not as required under the Circular dated 09.09.2015. Even if the same is not in the format, the requirements of such affidavit also have not been fulfilled and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. The facts, which are not in dispute, wherein the petitioner on 08.02.2022 pursuant to calling objections, has produced two certificates along with affidavit. The Circular/Guidelines dated 09.09.2015, which are relevant for the present purpose, reads as under:

fØehys;j esa ugha gksus laca/kh izek.k&i=] d o"kZ ds fy, ekU; gksxk ,d ckj fØehys;j esa ugha gksus dk izek.k&i= tkjh gksus ds mijkUr vxj izkFkhZ vkxkeh o"kZ esa Hkh fØehys;j esa ugha gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mlls lR;kfir 'kiFk&i= ifjf'k"B&M ysdj iwoZ esa tkjh izek.k&*i= dks gh eku fy;k tkos ,slk vf/kdre rhu o"kZ rd fd;k tk ldrk gSA

8. A perusal of the above would reveal that what has been indicated is that an NCL certificate would be valid for one year, and the same can be used for maximum three years on producing an affidavit (Annexure-M with the Guidelines). The petitioner, though sought to comply with the requirements of the Circular dated 09.09.2015 in producing the affidavit, apparently for lack of knowledge/guidance in this regard has not indicated the relevant requirements as per Annexure-M. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, indicates that he has simply reproduced the stipulation made in the Circular dated 09.09.2015 regarding the certificate being valid for three years.

9. It is true that the affidavit filed does not comply with the requirements of the Circular dated 09.09.2015, however, the intention of the petitioner in producing the affidavit cannot be doubted. The intention all along has been to claim benefit of the fact that the certificate with the aid of affidavit could be valid for three years. This Court in the case of Kailash Kumar (supra) inter alia came to the co