The department should not reject a candidate's candidature altogether based on the production of a certificate of non-creamy layer of a later period, and should insist on collecting the original certificate of the relevant period.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1547/2020.

2. Brief facts are as under :

The State Government had issued advertisement on 30.05.2018 for filling up the posts of Nurse Grade-II. The last date for applying was 03.07.2018. The respondent herein-original petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement on 02.07.2018 as O.B.C. non-creamy layer candidate. Along with the application, the petitioner had also produced a copy of the certificate dated 18.06.2018 showing that he belongs to non- creamy layer.

3. Upon completion of selection process, the authorities published the list of selected candidates. The name of the petitioner was included in the same. The stage, therefore, arrived for document verification. According to the petitioner, thinking that the correct certificate of non-creamy layer would be needed, he obtained a fresh certificate of belonging to non-creamy layer dated 13.01.2020 and produced before the authorities at the time of document verification.

4. On the ground that the petitioner had not produced the certificate of belonging to non-creamy layer of the relevant period, his case was considered as non-O.B.C. candidate. He, therefore, filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by observing that it may be that the certificate of belonging to non-creamy layer had to be of the relevant period, nevertheless, if the petitioner had out of over anxiety, produced the latest certificate, his candidature should not be rejected only on that ground. The learned Single Judge consequently allowed the writ petition and asked the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3 on 24.02.2020 along with original certificate dated 18.06.2018. If the same was produced, it was directed that the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered on such basis in terms of the select list.

5. We do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. The petitioner had produced a copy of certificate dated 18.06.2018 at the time of making application, which showed that he belonged to non-creamy layer. If it was out of misunderstanding that he produced a certificate of the later period, which also shows that he belongs to non-creamy layer, the department ought not to have rejected his candidature altogether as OBC candidate. If at all the department should have insisted on collecting the original certificate dated 18.06.2018 and if the petitioner had refused to produce the same, his candidature should have been rejected as OBC candidate.

6. In the result, while disposing of this appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not disturbed. We are informed that the petitioner had already produced the original certificate before the respondent No. 3, the said authority shall therefore proceed to offer the appointment to the petitioner as per his position in the select list. However, as long as this is done within a period of two months from today, there would be no question of back wages or service to be reckoned for the past period.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.