AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 25.11.2009 issued by respondent No. 1 impugned at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking that the selection of respondents No. 3 to 8 by respondent No. 1 under the select list dated 09.11.2009 for the post of Security Guards be quashed. As a consequence, the petitioner is seeking that respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to select the petitioner for the post of Security Guard reserved under the category of Scheduled Caste (Rural) and place him in the appropriate place.
Respondents No. 1 and 2 issued a notification dated 20.02.2009 to fill up the posts which had been notified therein. One of the categories indicated therein was the Class-IV post of the Security guards. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 to 8 herein as also several other applicants responded to the said notification. The petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 8 have applied seeking appointment under Scheduled Caste (Rural) category. Though the petitioner had qualified in the physical test and he contends that he has secured more marks than respondents No. 3 to 8, the name of the petitioner was not included in the select list under the Scheduled Caste (Rural) Category since according to respondents No. 1 and 2, the requisite caste certificate which was required to be produced as per the recruitment notification had not been produced by the petitioner.
The petitioner, subsequent to the verification of documents had made a representation as at Annexure-G seeking that the documents produced along with the said representation be taken into consideration and since the same satisfies the requirement under the notification, the case of the petitioner be considered. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have issued the impugned endorsement declining the request of the petitioner. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
Respondents have filed their objection statement and have sought to justify their action. It is pointed out that the petitioner submitted the application as per the notification dated 20.02.2009. On 02.11.2009, the physical efficiency tests of the candidates was conducted. It is pointed out that the certificate to claim reservation was required to be produced for verification on the said date. Since the petitioner had not produced the documents which he claims to have secured prior to the date of the application, the case of the petitioner had not been considered and the provisional select list was published on 13.11.2009. Since the petitioner was not qualified under the Scheduled Caste (Rural) category and was considered under the general merit, the case of the petitioner was not available to be considered and to be included under the select list. Respondents No. 1 and 2 therefore seek to justify their action and contend that the prayers made in the petition be rejected.
In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
The fact that the petitioner is a person belonging Scheduled Caste (Rural) category cannot be in dispute. However, the question for consideration herein is as to whether the case of the petitioner would require consideration in a circumstance where the petitioner did not produce the requisite document to establish the category under which he is claiming the reservation at a point when it was required to be produced for verification and whether the subsequent attempt of the petitioner to produce the documents along with the representation can be taken into consideration and in that light, whether a direction is to be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner?
On that aspect of the matter, there is no serious dispute to the fact that the Scheduled Caste (Rural) Certificate possessed by the petitioner had not been produced for verification on 02.11.2009 when it was required to be produced and no doubt, it is produced along with the representation at Annexure-G to the petition. The selected candidates viz., respondents No. 3 to 8 were also required to produce the documents in support of the reservation sought by them on the date of verification viz., 02.11.2009. If that be the position, the requisite documents were required to be produced on the said date and if any of the candidates who had claimed reservation under a particular category had not produced the said documents on the said date, the remaining candidates who were to be considered in the selection process would get a right to be considered in that category, though it may not be vested right to claim appointment. In that background, if any person having secured higher marks and while claiming reservation under the category could not substantiate his case by producing the necessary documents, certainly the said candidate would have to be excluded.
In the instant case, the petitioner though did not produce the certificate for verification on 02.11.2009 has made an attempt to produce the same only on 13.11.2009. By the said date, the process of verification of the documents had been completed and as already indicated above, certain right had already been vested in respondents No. 3 to 8 though they had not yet been included in the final select list, but their right was for consideration by excluding the petitioner. If at that stage the representation had been considered and the certificate even if it was in petitioner''s possession earlier, but had not been produced for verification when it was required to be produced is accepted, the right of the other eligible candidates would stand defeated and when the requirement under the notification had not been satisfied by a candidate when it was required to be satisfied, the subsequent request cannot be taken into consideration as otherwise, it would be difficult to finalise the selection process.
Further, what is necessary to be noticed is that though appointment of respondents No. 3 to 8 has been made subject to result of this petition, sufficiently long period of seven years has gone by after the appointment orders have been issued in favour of respondents No. 3 to 8 and it is not desirable to upset the same. To the said extent, the observation as made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others vs. Dr. Sushil V. Patkar and Others (, AIR 1991 SC 1733) relied on by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would become relevant. It is no doubt true that the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others (, AIR 2004 SC 5043) to contend that the benefit should not be denied for technical reasons when a person qualifies for the selection. Such consideration was made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the case of the petitioner therein for allotment of seat for a medical course. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in such circumstance had directed that the student should be accommodated in any other College. That in itself would indicate that the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the view that the selected candidates should not be disturbed but at the same time, the candidate who had qualification also be accommodated. However, the said principle cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case since the number of posts that had been reserved under the said category have all been filled up by respondents No. 3 to 8 and the petitioner in any event cannot be accommodated at this stage in addition to the persons who have already been selected or under any other category.
Further the said respondents No. 3 to 8 are also the persons belonging to the said category and come from a humble background and as such their selection cannot be disturbed at this point when it is taken note that the petitioner at the first instance was not diligent in submitting all his documents as per the requirement and has not produced at the time of verification. Therefore for all the aforestated reasons, I see no merit in this petition.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.