Validity of OBC certificate, importance of caste certificates bearing the name of the parent, and inapplicability of reservation benefits through marriage

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Ms. Archana Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer.

2. This petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.012021 passed by respondent no.4 (Basic Education Officer, Hathras) as contained in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Govt. Order No.1656/68-5-2020 Basic Shiksha Anubhag-5, Lucknow dated 04.12.2020 (Copy of which is not available to the petitioner)

iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in pursuance of advertisement dated 05.12.2018 being "Sahayak Adhyapak Bharti Pariksha-2019"."

3. The petitioner had appeared in a recruitment exercise initiated by the respondents for appointment of Assistant Teachers. She claimed the benefits of reservation by virtue of belonging to the OBC category. By the impugned order however her candidature has been rejected with the respondent noting that the petitioner had furnished an OBC certificate which bore the name of her husband and not the father. Additionally, it was noted that the OBC certificate which carried the name of her father had been issued by an authority in the State of Rajasthan and thus was not liable to be accepted. The respondents ultimately referring to the provisions made in a Government Order of 04 December 2020, have consequently held that the petitioner cannot be offered appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the aforesaid decision places reliance upon a judgment rendered by a learned Judge in Vipin Kumar Maurya and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, 2019 (2) ADJ 133 to submit that merely because the petitioner originally hailed from Rajasthan and subsequently married in Uttar Pradesh, she could not be denied benefits of reservation as otherwise provided to OBC candidates. It was then contended that the Government Order of 04 December 2020 cannot be said to apply since it admittedly came to be issued not just after the initiation of the recruitment process but after the counseling process had come to an end. Learned counsel then placed reliance upon the certificate dated 15 March 2004 issued by the Tehsildar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan to contend that the aforesaid certificate which bore the name of her father clearly qualified as being in sufficient compliance with the conditions which were imposed under the recruitment notification. It was lastly contended by learned counsel that even if her candidature under the OBC category came to be denied on grounds noted above, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider her candidature in the General category.

5. The Court finds itself unable to sustain the aforenoted submissions for the following reasons.

6. Firstly, Vipin Kumar Maurya was a decision which dealt with the issue of whether a woman from outside the State of U.P. could be excluded from a recruitment exercise initiated by the State. The learned Judge on the basis of the submissions which were addressed, proceeded to record his conclusions in paragraph 58 in the following terms:

"58. In our constitutional scheme women of this country are otherwise a homogeneous lot and they cannot be differentiated unless reasons and materials exists for their further classification. Classification based only on residence would otherwise be permitted only by law made by the Parliament, which is not the case here. In such circumstances and for the reasons disclosed, it is held that Clause (4) of the Government Order dated 9.1.2007 restricting grant of horizontal reservation only to the women who are original residents of Uttar Pradesh as also specific stipulations in that regard, contained in A