Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Navin Kumar Pramanik - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
LPA No. 214 of 2017 with I.A. No. 3201 of 2017
Decided On : 15-12-2017
For the Petitioners: Ranjit Kumar.
For the Respondents: Rajiv Sinha.
The power to declare a caste as an Other Backward Caste for a specific state rests with the Central Government, and it is not within the court's jurisdiction to add equivalent castes to the list of Other Backward Castes.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - [LPA No. 214 of 2017] - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963] - The court allowed the condonation of delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal based on reasonable grounds presented in the interlocutory application.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, belonging to a caste not declared as Other Backward Caste by the Central Government, sought employment as an Other Backward Caste candidate. The appellant's claim was based on the equivalence of his caste 'HAZAM' to 'NAI', which was declared as an Other Backward Caste for the State of Jharkhand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's caste 'HAZAM' was not declared as an Other Backward Caste for the State of Jharkhand by the Central Government. The court rejected the appellant's argument of equivalence between 'HAZAM' and 'NAI', stating that it was not within the court's jurisdiction to add equivalent castes to the list of Other Backward Castes.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's claim of belonging to an Other Backward Caste based on the equivalence of his caste 'HAZAM' to 'NAI' and the refusal of employment on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was not permissible to add equivalent castes to the list of Other Backward Castes and that the power to declare a caste as an Other Backward Caste for a specific state rested with the Central Government.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as the court found no substance in the appellant's claim.
D.N. PATEL, J.
1. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 39 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 4 to 12, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.
3. In view of these facts, we, hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3201 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
LPA No. 214 of 2017
4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order, dated 2nd February, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015, whereby, the petition preferred by this, appellant was dismissed.
The caste, which this appellant belongs to and which is not declared as Other 'Backward Caste by the Central Government, has been maintained as it is and this appellant had not been treated as a member of Other Backward Castes by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the said writ petition and hence, the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
5. Factual Matrix
Public advertisement was issued being, Advertisement No. 329 in the month of December, 2011, for the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Police Organizations and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifle etc. The written test was held on 22nd April, 2012 and after all type of tests were taken, select list was published on 12th June, 2014.
The name of this appellant (original petitioner) found place in the said select list.
This appellant has secured 38 marks in the selection process, but, as he was treated as ,unreserved category candidate by the respondent authority, for which cut-off mark Was 46 (because the last selected candidate has secured 46 marks), this appellant was not given employment order and hence, writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2017 and hence, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner).
6. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant
It has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that this appellant belongs to Other Backward Castes category and his caste certificate reveals that he is ‘HAZAM’ by caste, which is also known as Barber and ‘NAI’. These words are not unfamiliar in this country. The list of Other Backward Caste candidates has been published by the Central Government on 18th August, 2010, which is at Annexure 8 (series) to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and as per this list, in the State of Chhattisgarh both 'HAZAM’ as well as ‘NAL’ are Other Backward Castes, whereas, in the State of Jharkhand only “NAI” are other Backward Castes, whereas, in the State of Jharkhand only. “NAI” has been declared as Other Backward Caste. This appellant (original petitioner) is a ‘HAZAM’. His caste is ‘HAZAM’ and even though the word ‘NAI’ has been published in the list of Central Government as Other Backward Caste for the State of Jharkhand, this appellant should have been appointed because the word ‘HAZAM’ is synonymous to the word ‘NAI’.
This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and hence, judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2017, delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2535 of 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents:
Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that list of Other Backward Castes has already been published, State-wise, by the Central Government on 18th August, 2010, which is at Annexure-8 (series) to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This appellant is claiming employment as an Other Backw
