ORDER

[Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.P.Madhavan, Member(J)]

In short, the applicant's case is that he belongs to OBC ctegory and the respondents had issued a notification on 20.4.12 calling for applications for filling up of the post of UD Clerks and the applicant had applied for the said post and he was selected as Sl.No.1 of the OBC category. He had obtained 55.25 marks in the examination and the result was published on 01.10.2012. Eventhough the name of the applicant came up first in the select list, the respondents had not given any appointment to him. When he had enquired regarding his non-appointment, the respondents had orally informed that the applicant has not produced a proper Community Certificate. According to the applicant, he had produced a Community Certificate dt. 26.3.10 before the respondents but they have not accepted it.

According to the applicant, the said Community Certificate is valid till its cancellation by the competent authority. There is no reason to deny appointment to him. So he prays for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as UDC on the basis of rank list published on 01.10.12 with all consequential benefits.

2.The respondents appeared and filed a detailed reply. There is no dispute regarding the notification issued by the respondents and the existence of 13 posts of UD Clerks set apart of the OBC Community in the notification. There is also no dispute that the applicant has applied for the post on online and he had come up in the select list under OBC. But according to the respondents, when the applicant was called for certificate verification, he could not produce proper Community Certificate and Nativity Certificate as prescribed in the notification. According to the respondents, the applicant has to produce a Community Certificate in the prescribed form from an Officer of Department of Revenue and Disaster Management not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar and the said certificate should have been issued within 1 year from the date of notification of results of the recruitment test. When the applicant was called for certificate verification on 21.8.13, he had produced a Community Certificate dt. 26.3.10 which was not within the prescribed time limit of 1 year as specified in the notification. The respondents has produced a copy of the said Community Certificate as Annexure R5. Then the applicant sought one week time to produce a fresh Community Certificate and he was granted one week time.

But the applicant could not produce the same. The copy of the request made by the applicant is produced as Annexure R7.

3.The main contention put forward by the applicant in this case is that the Community Certificate issued on 26.3.10 is neither cancelled or modified fill date and there is no need to any fresh certificate. The applicant mainly rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in S.P.Sakthi Devi v. Collector of Salem & Others [reported in 1984 Writ Law Reporter page 535] wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that a Caste Certificate duly issued y a competent authority can be cancelled only by a competent authority and it is valid till such time. According to the respondents, the applicant had applied for a fresh certificate to the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities after conducting enquiry has issued a fresh certificate on 13.8.13 stating that the applicant belongs to Settibalija OBC (Migrant).

The applicant did not produce the same as it is not helpful to him. The subsequent certificate issued by the competent authority prevails upon the earlier certificate which was issued on 26.3.2010 and the applicant has suppressed this fact in the OA.

The Nativity Certificate produced is also not in the proper form as prescribed in the notification. According to the respondents, on enquiry by the Revenue Authorities it was revealed that the applicant is a native of Neelapalli Village,Taliarevu Mandal, East Goda