Saif Uddin Khan vs Union Of India And 6 Ors

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.N.

Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Anix Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned

additional senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.5 and 6. None appears on call for respondent no.7 despite service of notice.

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that he had participated in the

selection process for 12 (twelve) posts of Assistant Technician (Electronics) A-2 Level pursuant to advertisement No.1/2019 (Non-Executives). Out

of the post advertised, 6 (six) posts were kept for unreserved category. The petitioner is a general category candidate and holds 3 (three) years

diploma in Electronics & Telecommunication and was otherwise qualified to be appointed to the said post. It is not disputed that the petitioner had

participated in the Computer Based Test and his name appeared in Sl. No.72 of the list of candidates shortlisted for uploading of documents and his

position was at Sl. No.5 in order of merit. The petitioner had uploaded various documents for the purpose of verification on 13.11.2019 including a

Residential Status Certificate dated 10.09.2008 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. The petitioner has also submitted a

verification report issued by the letter of Authentication of Residential Status Certificate dated 23.03.2020 issued by the Additional Deputy

Commissioner, Barpeta, which was addressed to the General Manager, ONGC, Nazira. The respondents were insisting on the production of the

Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC in short) and by email dated 21.03.2020, the petitioner was informed that he had submitted a verification

report instead of PRC. Accordingly, the final select list dated 16.07.2020 was published and the name of the respondent no.7 appeared at Serial No.1.

The aggrieved petitioner had submitted his representation dated 17.07.2020 and 24.07.2020 by email before the officials of the ONGC. However, by

email dated 07.08.2020, the officials of the ONGC had informed the petitioner that documents submitted by the petitioner was not PRC and therefore,

his case was not considered for appointment. Accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the said respondents that in

the employment advertisement, it was clear that the candidate is required to be a domicile of the particular State and that it was mandatory for a

candidate to produce a certificate of domicile from the concerned State at the time of Skill Test by uploading documents. The learned senior counsel

has submitted that the Govt. of Assam issues PRC for the purpose of higher education and therefore, the petitioner could have produced a PRC as the

proof for permanent resident of the State of Assam. It is also submitted that although the PRC is issued only for educational purpose, but it was

permitted to be used for the purpose of recruitment in the ONGC. Therefore, as the petitioner was apprised of the requirement to submit a PRC, the

said document having not been uploaded, the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered. It is further submitted that as the name of the

respondent no.7 appeared in the select list, the officials of the ONGC has already issued appointment letter to the respondent no.7 and the respondent

no.7 has already reported for joining. It is also submitted that as there is no existing vacancy, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered by the

respondents.

In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 has placed reliance on Annexure-III to the affidavit-in-

opposition and it is submitted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had clarified to the ONGC that the PRC can be used to establish permanent

residency status of a candidate and accordingly, the Recruitment and Promotion Section of the ONGC has taken a decision to allow candidates

possessing PRC to be eligible to apply.

The Court is inclined to take notice of the judgment and order dated 16.02.2009 passed by this Court in the case of Sankar Deka & Ors. vs. The

Union of India & Ors,, WP(C) No.287/2009. The said writ petition was filed in respect of the selection for appointment to the post of General Duty

Constable in CRPF and in the said context, there was a requirement of holding a valid PRC. In the said writ petition, the learned Govt. Advocate

appearing for the State of Assam had produced instructions to the effect that PRC was issued only for educational purpose. In the said case, an

alternative was offered by the State of Assam to the effect that once selected, Residential Status Certificates can be granted by the district authorities

on proper verification. Accordingly, this Court found that alternative offer of the State to be a reasonable alternative. The relevant paragraph of the

said judgment is quoted below:

“In so far as the petitioners are concerned, it has been demonstrated by the materials on record that the PRCs insisted upon by the CRPF

authorities cannot be produced by the petitioners. The alternative offered by the State of Assam i.e. once selected, residential status

certificates can be granted by the district authorities on proper verification appears to the Court to be a reasonable alternative. In such

circumstances, the petitioners for no fault of their own, cannot be debarred from participating in the selections for which they have been

issued called letters but have been restrained from participation only on account of non-furnishing of PRCs. Appropriate directions,

therefore, will have to be issued to the CRPF authorities to allow the petitioners to take part in such selections.

The Court has taken note of the fact that it is the stand of the CRPF authorities that the selection process is being conducted inside the

CRPF campus and to waive the requirement of submission of PRCs may facilitate the entry of unauthorized person into the CRPF campus.

The difficulty pointed out deserves to be considered by the Court without, however, effecting the right of all the eligible candidates to

participate in the selection. To take care of such a situation, it is directed that if required, the CRPF authorities will hold the recruitment for

the petitioners in some other venue(s) outside the CRPF campus, if problems as indicated above are still perceived to occur.

Consequently, all the writ petitions are disposed of by directing that each of the petitioners be allowed to take part in the recruitment rally

for appointment as General Duty Constable in the CRPF on any date and venue as may now be re-fixed by the CRPF authorities. All the writ

petitions, therefore, shall stand closed in terms of the above.

Before parting with the records, the Court is compelled to take note of the fact that large number of PRCs which can only be described as

unauthorized have been issued by the district authorities in at least four districts i.e. Sonitpur, Nalbari, Dhubri and Baksa. Possibly, such

unauthorized PRCs may have been issued in other districts also. Such PRCs may be in possession of the CRPF authorities. The CRPF

authorities, therefore, shall hand over copies of such certificates to the authorities in the Home Department of the Govt. of Assam, who,

thereafter, will order necessary enquiries in the matter and take action against the erring officials. In so far as the districts of Sonitpur,

Nalbari, Dhubri and Baksa are concerned, as PRCs issued by the district authorities of the said districts were handed over to the

appropriate authority in the State Government through the learned Govt. Advocate quite some time back, the Court desires to be informed of

as to what action has been taken against the said authorities. The aforesaid information be conveyed to the Court tomorrow at 10.15 a.m.

when these matters will again be taken up for the aforesaid limited purpose.

The written instructions dated 6.2.2009 along with the communications appended thereto including the letter dated 21.04.2006 and

24.12.2008, as placed before the Court by the learned Govt. Advocate and the written instructions placed before the Court by Mr. D.K.

Saikia, learned Central Govt. counsel along with the PRCs enclosed thereto, by way of illustration, be kept on record.â€​

In the present case in hand, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that the petitioner had produced the

Residential Status Certificate dated 10.09.2008 (Annexure-6), issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta under the signature of the

Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. However, the said certificate was issued for the purpose of admission into Govt. Education Institution only.

On objection being raised by the ONGC that it was not PRC, the petitioner had obtained a certificate bearing No.BAMC-110/2014/76 dated

23.03.2020 (Annexure-9), by which the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta had authenticated the Residential Status Certificate issued to the

petitioner clarifying that it was for educational purpose only. Therefore, the fact is that the petitioner was unable to obtain PRC for employment

purpose, for no fault on his part, but the petitioner had no way to obtain a certificate, the issuance of which was barred under the policy decision taken

by the State not to issue any PRC except for educational purposes. Therefore, the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 cannot deny employment to the petitioner

on account of his failure to obtain PRC, which the State does not issue.

Notice of the Court is brought to the fact that except for medical and engineering entrance examinations, the PRC is not required for admission into

other educational courses like B.A., B.Com, B.Sc., LL.B. etc. Moreover, it is only when the educational forms are issued, the Deputy Commissioner

or his nominee issues a PRC. Therefore, the PRC is not issued by the Deputy Commissioner to any person who wants to obtain a PRC, specially

when such PRC is not the requirement for admission into every educational course other than Engineering or Medical course. Therefore, the Court

finds that the denial of employment opportunity to the petitioner is not sustainable on the ground that the requirement of producing a PRC was not

complied with. Such a requirement is hit by impossibility of performance as the petitioner cannot produce a PRC unless the State of Assam issues

PRC for employment purposes. A candidate who had not pursued any education in the field of medical and engineering course would have no reason

to obtain a PRC. Therefore, such candidate cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice for not procuring PRC in earlier point of time.

Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the ONGC would also have to modify their requirement as was done by the CRPF in the

hereinbefore referred case of Sankar Deka (supra) and on issuance of certificate of selection by the ONGC, the petitioner would be required to

approach the office of Deputy Commissioner for re-verification of the Residential Status Certificate and on such verification, the jurisdictional Deputy

Commissioner shall issue a Residential Status Certificate. The re-verification of the Residential Status Certificate appears to be a reasonable

alternative because the Govt. of Assam is not issuing any PRC for employment purpose.

Accordingly, in view of the discussions above, non-selection of the writ petitioner is not sustainable and therefore, the Court is inclined to set aside

and quash the result-sheet issued under Memo No.AA/R&P/01_2019-RP1 dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure-10) issued by the Recruitment & Promotion

Section, ONGC, Assam Asset only in so far as it relates to the selection of respondent no.7, whose name appeared at Sl. No.1, Regn.

No.180301001397.

Resultantly, the competent authorities of respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 shall issue a provisional selection certificate to the petitioner with an advice to

the petitioner to submit a re-verified Residential Status Certificate from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta within a reasonable time so

fixed by the said authority and on furnishing the verification report, the competent authorities of the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 would issue a formal

selection letter to the petitioner. Needless to mention that in the event the petitioner fails to obtain and submit a re-verification report in respect of the

Residential Status Certificate, the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 shall become entitled to recall/ revoke the provisional selection certificate and restore the

engagement of the respondent no.7.

In terms of the relief as indicated above, the rule is made absolute and the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.