Vinay Kumar Pashine vs M.P. Professional Examination Board

Rajendra Menon, J.—Petitioner claims to be a person belonging to "kalar" community a OBC notified in the State of Madhya Pradesh and was issued with a Caste Certificate Annexure P/1 by the Tahsildar in the year 1994-95. Certain orders were passed for the purpose of recruitment of IT operators, Data Entry Operators etc. in the Commercial Tax Department and petitioner participated in the process of selection which was conducted in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 28.9.2008 vide Annexure P/2. Petitioner submitted the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar and based on the Caste Certificate issued, petitioner was permitted to take up examination which was conducted on 12.7.2009 after issuance of admit card Annexure P/3. Petitioner is said to have successfully qualified in the written examination and was called for interview which was held on 16.9.2009 as is evident from interview letter Annexure P/4. However, it seems that on the ground that petitioner is only issued caste certificate by the Tahsildar and the caste certificate should have been issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) who is the competent authority to issue the caste certificate petitioner was not permitted to participate in the interview. Challenging the same petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondents have filed the reply and have brought on record certain circulars and orders passed by the State Government that now the Caste Certificate has to be issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar was not valid for the purpose of considering the candidature of the petitioner. Even though such an assertion is made by the respondents in the return but the fact remains that a Division Bench of this Court has decided the said question pertaining to same recruitment process in W.A. No. 1307/2011 - Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. State of M.P. & Others. A certified copy of order passed by the Division Bench is produced before this Court which goes to show that with regard to same examination and recruitment process when similar action was taken against Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu and when he was not permitted to participate in the interview based on the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Writ Court held that at the relevant time when the interview and selection process was held, the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar was valid as it was passed on the date prior to issuance of Circular dated 16.7.2008 which was not in effect at the relevant time in the year 1994-95. It has been held by the Division Bench that the subsequent Circular issued by the 16.7.2008 indicating various authorities for the purpose of issuance of caste certificate will not mean that the Caste Certificate earlier issued by the competent authority has become invalid. That apart, in the present case petitioner has also produce the caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Division Bench after evaluating similar consideration has decided the matter in the following manner:-

In Hitesh Prajapati Vs. The State of M.P. and another (W.P. No. 6897/2008 (s) decided on 7.7.2010 which has been referred in the impugned order, the controversy was entirely different. It was a case in which temporary certificate was issued, but no permanent caste certificate was produced before the Court. But, in the present case, the Caste Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, who was the competent authority, at the relevant time to issue the caste certificate and nobody had disputed the correctness of the certificate. It will be pertinent to mention here that the caste of the appellant is not in dispute and on being asked specifically from the parties, it has been admitted before this Court that the appellant belongs to OBC category.

In view of the aforesaid, we find that the candidature of the appellant was wrongly rejected by the respondents. He participated in the process but after personal interview, his candidature was rejected. The aforesaid action is not sustainable in law and is hereby quashed.

In view of the aforesaid, we direct respondents to initiate the process from the stage from where the candidature of appellant was rejected and in case it is found that the appellant was otherwise fit for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator/I.T. Operator, the respondents shall consider his candidature in accordance with law, and if there is no impediment in the matter, to issue consequential order forthwith.

All the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order.

Considering the facts of the case, appellant shall be entitled for the cost of this litigation. We quantify the cost of this petition Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) payable by the respondents to the appellant.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is also allowed and disposed of in identical terms. Within a period of 60 days as indicated herein above by the Division Bench, the claim of the petitioner be also considered and the cost as quantified by the Division Bench be also paid to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. c.c. as per rules.