Deepak Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner applied for the post of Nurse Garde-II pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.5.2018 and submitted his application form while

showing his category as “Generalâ€​.

When the result of written examination was declared on 6.2.2019,the petitioner purportedly realized that he had submitted his application form as a

general candidate, whereas he belonged to OBC.

Such being the position, the petitioner moved a representation and requested the respondents to permit him to change his category and consider his

candidature under OBC category.

The petitioner’s such request was not heeded to, for which, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents for

consideration of his candidature under OBC non-creamy layer category.

In support of the cause of the petitioner, learned counsel submitted that after declaration of result, the respondents had invited objections, in

furtherance whereof, the petitioner had moved a representation dated 15.2.2019 with a request to change his category.

With a view to make out a case of discrimination, it was argued that petitioner’s request was not acceded to, whereas change of sub-catetory

qua 15 candidates was permitted as was purportedly evident from perusal of communication dated 26.4.2019 (Annex.7). Learned counsel argued that

if the respondents have granted indulgence to 15 candidates and permitted them to change their category, then the petitioner’s case being identical,

ought to have been considered appropriately.

Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that clause 13 of the advertisement was clear and explicit. The petitioner was not only

required to indicate his correct category, he was also required to upload his caste certificate, which even going by the record of the present case, had

been issued in the year 2013. It was argued that as per the terms of the advertisement, a candidate claiming his candidature under OBC non-creamy

layer was required to upload a certificate in this regard issued not later than a year.

Learned counsel for further argued that firstly no change of category is permissible and secondly, even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed

that petitioner could get his category changed, he has failed to produce a recent certificate, as was required under the advertisement.

Heard.

There is no dispute in the facts that while submitting the application form, petitioner had showed his category to be “general†or “openâ€.

The petitioner had neither showed his category as OBC nor had he uploaded his certificate of OBC. Hence, even a pretense of inadvertence is not

tenable.

In the facts of the present case, it seems to be a conscious decision of the petitioner to have applied under general category, which is evident from

the fact that the petitioner had not even obtained a certificate of OBC non-creamy layer at the relevant point of time. It is only after declaration of the

result, the petitioner became wiser and has requested to change his category to OBC, being swayed by the fact that the marks obtained by him were

more than the cut off marks of OBC.

This Court in SBCWP No.2134/2020 : Nikita Nagriya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 12.2.2020 in almost similar and akin controversy

raised by the petitioner therein, observed as under:

“8. It is pertinent to note that reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBC) is not available solely on the basis of their caste; it is also subservient

to the financial status of the candidate belonging to such caste.

The requirement of a recent certificate is imperative, rather fundamental, so that parameters of financial status at the relevant time can be

examined.

True it is, that petitioner’s certificate dated 20.06.2013 shows her caste to be covered by Other Backward Classes, however, it is not

reflective of her financial status or the fact that she belongs to Non Cremay Layer.

That apart, in the face of the clear condition in the advertisement, the petitioner was required to furnish a recent certificate, issued not before one

year of the last date of submitting application form.

Petitioner’s request that she is prepared to furnish the certificate now cannot be countenanced, as the recent certificate dated 13.01.2020 has

been issued not only after the last date of submitting application form, but even after the final merit list has been declared.

So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) is concerned, the same involves a caste

certificate of SC/ST. Caste certificate of a candidate belonging to SC/ST does not lose its sanctity, as reservation to SC/ST is based on the caste,

independent of economic status. But reservation to OBC candidate is based upon their financial/social status which may change with the passage of

time.

The petitioner, who hails from backward class, having staked her claim as an OBC-NCL candidate, cannot claim parity on the basis of judgment

of Ram Kumar Gijroya’s case (supra).

There is no substance/merit in the writ petition, the same is,thus, dismissed. 16.The stay application is also dismissed.â€​

In light of the discussion foregoing and in view of judgment in the case of Nikita Nagriya (supra), the present writ petition deserves to be

dismissed. Which I hereby do.

The stay application, also, is dismissed.