The last date for submission of the OBC certificate as relevant for reckoning the OBC status of the candidate.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1 Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Mishra, appearing for the FCI and Shri Praveen Kumar Singh for the Respondent no. 7 and Shri Dharmendra Singh for the Respondent no. 5 and Respondent no. 6 newly private respondent is not representing.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to be issued to the Respondent FCI to consider the candidature of the petitioner in OBC Category and to place him in the Select List dated 26.07.2018 in respect of Advertisement No. 3 of 2015- FCI/Category-III issued by the Respondents for the post of Assistant Grade-III (General/Accounts/Technical/Depot) and also not to finalize the selection process in pursuance of Select list dated 26.07.2018 till consideration of the petitioner as Assistant Grade-III for appointment under OBC Category.

3. It has been argued that an Advertisement had been issued in February, 2015 by the FCI Zone wise for Recruitment of Junior Engineer, Assistant Grade-III (Typist Hindi and Assistant Grade-III). The petitioner submitted his Online application on 14.03.2015 showing himself as belonging to OBC candidate. A Total 131 posts were reserved for OBC Category in Assistant Grade-III cadre. The respondents finalized the Selection process and declared a Select list and also a common waiting list of candidates in which the name of the petitioner was placed at S. No. 862 in OBC Category and his rank was shown as 276. However, in the Revised waiting list the respondents have placed the petitioner in General Category at S. No. 276 without any reason. When the revised waiting list was issued on 01.02.2018, the petitioner has made a Representation to the respondents praying that he may be considered for OBC Category and he may be allowed to give his OBC Certificate in its original for the grant of benefit of reserved Category. The petitioner was called for Document Verification on 14.02.2016. The petitioner had appeared for documents verification at Noida, the entire documents in support of his claim were produced before the Authority concerned.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to OBC Category and he also applied in the said category but the respondents did not inform the petitioner that OBC Certificate was to be submitted at the time of documents verification. The petitioner on the basis of general information received from the other candidates sent his OBC Certificate by E-Mail to the Respondents on 18.04.2016 but arbitrarily the petitioner has been removed from OBC Category and placed in the unreserved list by the respondents. It has also been argued that Sarvasri Santosh Kumar, Govind Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar have been shown to be selected in list dated 26.07.2018. All these persons have lesser merit than the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved had given a detailed representation to the Respondents but the same has not been considered.

5. On the first day of hearing, as fresh this Court had passed an interim order directing the petitioner to implead the three selected candidates whose names had been mentioned in the writ petition as having lesser merit than the petitioner and issued notice to the private respondents. The respondents were directed that till the next date of listing no appointment letters shall be issued to the newly impleaded Respondent nos. 5 to 7. The interim order granted by this Court on 08.08.2018 has continued till date. In the meantime, pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

6. On 18.09.2021 this Court after hearing the parties had passed a detailed order wherein the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed that despite the petitioner having necessary OBC Certificate he was wrongly denied the benefit of reserved category and placed under unreserved category by taking a ground that the petitioner did not produce