The validity of a caste certificate is crucial for eligibility in recruitment, and expired certificates do not meet the necessary criteria.

ORDER :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby;

i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondent Director Ayurved Department may kindly be directed to provide the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Ayurved Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade against the advertisement No.01/2018 (Annexure-1) forthwith and further the respondent directed to provide all consequential benefits the petitioner from to 12.02.2020.

ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iii) the petitioner may kindly be awarded the cost of this writ petition.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent- Department issued an advertisement in the year 2018 for recruitment to the post of Ayurved Compouder/Nurse Junior Grade under the Rules of Rajasthan Ayurved, Unani, Homeopathy and natural Medical (Subordinate Service) Rules. The petitioner thereafter submitted application for the same under the category of Other Backward Class (Non-Creamy) layer [‘OBC (NC)’] (Annex.1) with the requisite documents including her caste certificate dated 12.04.2013 (Annex.2 colly.). On 21.01.2020, the respondent-Department issued the revised provisional cut-off marks (Annex.3), whereby the cut-off marks for OBC category (women) candidates were declared as 54.81. Subsequently, the Directorate, Ayurved Department, issued a list of selected candidates for appointment on 12.02.2020 (Annex.4), wherein the petitioner’s name was not mentioned.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner along with several other candidates, filed an application before the Registrar of the University in pursuance of the list issued on 12.02.2020 (Annex.4), in response to which a committee was constituted to enquire into the matter. Subsequently, the committee, in its report dated 02.03.2020 (Annex.7) observed that the petitioner’s name shall be included between Sr. No. 36 and 37, and in pursuance thereof, the Director sought a response from the Registrar vide communication dated 04.05.2020 (Annex.8) as to whether the petitioner is eligible for the appointment or not. Thereafter, on 18.08.2020 (Annex.13), after seeking a legal opinion on the matter was sought, the Registrar submitted its reply stating therein that the petitioner is entitled for appointment in the category of OBN (NC) female since she had submitted caste certificate dated 26.06.2019.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner was called for verification of documents on 17.02.2021, vide letter dated 12.02.2021 (Annex.15) which the petitioner complied with, however the respondent-Department has failed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner with regards to the said post.

5. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent-Department, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the caste certificate dated 12.04.2013 (Annex.2) has been submitted by the petitioner while filling the application form (Annex.1). He submits that the recent caste certificate does not mean newly issued caste certificate, but the interpretation of the termrecent should have been lastly issued caste certificate and thus, the petitioner deserves to be appointed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought to have been given appointment on the ground that she was meritorious candidate inasmuch as the cut-off marks for the OBC (NC) female category as mentioned in the list (Annex.3) are 54.81 marks while the petitioner has secured 54.84 marks, which is also reflected fro