JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel who appears for District Basic Education Officer.

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

“i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer Baghpat, District Baghpat regarding the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition).

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer Baghpat, District Baghpat to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of her eligibility.

…..”

3. The petitioner had participated in a recruitment exercise initiated by the respondents for appointment of Assistant Teachers. The selection process was undertaken against 69,000 vacancies. The petitioner also sought the extension of the benefits of reservation by virtue of belonging to a backward class. However, in support of the aforesaid she submitted a caste certificate which bore the name of her husband. On 04 December 2020, the respondents had issued a clarification providing that all caste certificates must be issued and bear a date prior to the cut-off date namely 28 May 2020. Additionally, it was provided that it should be ensured that the caste certificate bears the name of the parent of the applicant. The relevant stipulations in the order of 04 December 2020 read thus :-

^^¼1½ csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dh fu/kkZfjr dh x;h vfUre frfFk fnukad 28&05&2020 rd fuxZr fd;s x;s fuokl izek.k i= ,oa tkfr izek.k i= dks gh Lohdkj fd;k tk;sA

¼2½ ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; us oylEek iky cuke dksphu fo'o&fo|ky; 1996 S.C.C. 545 ,oa jkes'k HkkbZ nHkkj uk;dk cuke xqtjkr jkT; ,oa vU; flfoy vihy ua0654@2012 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fdlh efgyk dk nwljh tkfr esa 'kknh dj ysus ek= ls mldh tkfr dk LVsVl ugha cny tk;sxk] cfYd ftl tkfr esa mlus tUe fy;k gS] ogh ekuh tk;sxhA vr% ,slh efgyk vH;FkhZ ftlds }kjk izLrqr tkfr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr djrs gq, p;u izkIr fd;k x;k gS] mldk p;u fujLr dj fn;k tk;sA

¼3½ fuokl izek.k i= vU; izns'k dk gksus dk izdj.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls vPNkfnr gS rFkk bl lEcU/k esa 'kklukns'k la[;k&588@68&5&2019] fnukad 07&06&2019 fuxZr gSA bl lEcU/k esa mDr 'kklukns'k ds vkyksd esa dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA**

4. When the petitioner initially appeared at the counselling session, she was apprised that the caste certificate submitted by her along with the online application would be treated as invalid since it bore the name of her husband and she was accordingly directed to obtain a fresh caste certificate. That caste certificate came to be issued in her name on 02 June 2020. Upon noticing the aforesaid facts, the respondents taking into consideration the government orders of 31 March 2021 and 04 May 2021 have held that since the caste certificate had come to be issued after 28 May 2020 and a direction had been issued for according closure to the selection process initiated in 2019, the candidature of the petitioner could not be processed further.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the original caste certificate which was submitted by the petitioner as well as the caste certificate obtained now show that both her husband as well as her father belong to the same backward class. It was in this context submitted that the insistence of the respondents upon the petitioner obtaining a caste certificate in the name of her father was clearly superfluous and in any case could not have resulted in the denial of extension of reservation benefits to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner pursuant to the advice given by the respondents had applied for the grant of a fresh caste certificate bearing the name of her father on 19 May 2020. However, according to the petitioner, the res