Anjna Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no rejoinder is required to be filed to the reply filed by the respondents. Her statement is taken on record.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

The case of the petitioner is that she applied for appointment against the post of J.B.T Teacher under the Scheduled Caste category. At the time of counselling, she submitted the Scheduled Caste Certificate from her marital side, but the petitioner was asked by the Department to submit said certificate from her parental side i.e. Parental Scheduled Caste Certificate. According to the petitioner, she immediately submitted the same to respondent No. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the result declared by the Department, candidates less meritorious than her, have been placed in the waiting list of the Scheduled Caste category, whereas, her name has been excluded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied under the Scheduled Caste category and when she was called for counselling on 22.11.2023, she erroneously submitted the Caste Certificate from her husband's side. She further submitted that thereafter, Scheduled Caste Certificate from the parental side was also submitted by the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner also sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, regarding the procedure for appointment of Scheduled Caste category candidates on contract basis in terms of the J.B.T Recruitment Rules. In terms of the information supplied to the petitioner, she was informed that in case of a married woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category, the Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe Certificate from the parental side has to be obtained and if the same was not correct, then the candidate has to be directed to submit the same till the last date of counselling. She submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner indeed belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, the non-consideration of her candidature as a Scheduled Caste category candidate, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General drew the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the respondent-Department and submitted that the petitioner appeared for counselling on 22.11.2023 and on the said date, she submitted Scheduled Caste Certificate of marital side. She was asked to submit a Scheduled Caste Certificate issued in the name of her father, however, the petitioner did not do so and she failed to produce the Parental Caste Certificate before the Selection Committee, either at the time of counselling or thereafter, within the stipulated time frame. He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was considered as a General Category candidate because she did not produce the Scheduled Caste Certificate from her parental side, either on the date of counselling or thereafter and under these circumstances, in the absence of a valid Scheduled Caste Certificate being there on record in favour of the petitioner, obviously, she could not have been treated as a Scheduled Caste category candidate.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 while adopting the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, further submitted that at the time of counselling, the petitioner submitted a Scheduled Caste Certificate issued in the name of her husband. For women, it is the Parental Caste Certificate that is required to be submitted even after her marriage to establish as to whether she belongs to Scheduled Caste Category or not. In the absence of any such certificate from the parental side being submitted by the petitioner, the Authority rightly considered her as a General Category candidate.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record.

According to the petitioner, though as on the date when the counselling took place, she appeared before the Counselling Committee with a certificate of her belonging to Scheduled Caste, on the strength of the caste of her husband, but upon being asked by the Counselling Committee, she subsequently submitted a fresh certificate from her parental side to demonstrate that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste Category by birth.

On the other hand, the stand of the Department is that the petitioner, as on the date of the counselling, did not produce a valid Scheduled Caste Certificate from her parental side and despite being advised to do the needful, failed to do so.

In terms of the pleadings, the counselling was held on 22.11.2023. It is not in dispute that as on the date of counselling, the petitioner did not produce the Scheduled Caste Certificate from her parental side before the Counselling Committee. However, her allegation is that she did produce the same before the Department thereafter.

I have very carefully gone through the pleadings and a perusal of the writ petition demonstrates that except a bald averment made therein, that subsequently such a certificate was submitted with the Department, there is no iota of evidence on record to substantiate this fact.

In fact, Annexure P-3, the certificate which according to the petitioner was subsequently submitted by her to the Department, is dated 28.11.2023, whereas the counselling was held on 22.11.2023. This demonstrates the fact that as on the date when the counselling took place, because the certificate was not in existence, obviously, said certificate could not have been produced by the petitioner before the Counselling Committee.

As per the petitioner, subsequently she produced the Scheduled Caste certificate before the Department/Committee, which is being denied by the Department. As observed hereinabove, no material has been placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that Certificate (Annexure P-3) indeed was placed before the Department or the Committee by the petitioner before the declaration of the result.

At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. A perusal of the reply filed by the said respondents demonstrates that in Para 4 of the preliminary submissions and Para 3 of the reply on merits, it was categorically mentioned that as on the date of counselling, she was apprised of the deficiency in her documentation i.e. the need for the Parental Caste Certificate, yet she failed to rectify this deficiency by supplying the essential Scheduled Caste Certificate from her parental side on the last date of counselling and even thereafter, within the stipulated time frame. Now, no rejoinder to the reply has been filed by the petitioner to rebut this stand of the Department and thus, the factum of the non-supply of the Scheduled Caste Certificate from the parental side by the petitioner after this deficiency was pointed out to her by the Department, stands admitted by the petitioner.

Herein, it is the own act of omission of the petitioner which has led to her being considered as a General Category candidate and this Court finds no reason to grant any relief as is being prayed for by the petitioner.

In the absence of there being material on record that the petitioner submitted Scheduled Caste Category Certificate of Parental side at the time of counselling or thereafter, the Department was under no obligation to consider her as such.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste cannot be ignored, does not impress the Court because it is a mandatory condition for a candidate who is seeking reservation to furnish such a certificate before the Selection Committee, not only at the time when the candidate applies for the post, but also at the time of the verification of documents and in case, there is any discrepancy in the documents, then within some reasonable time as from the date of counselling etc. In the present case, as the petitioner failed to provide such a certificate either at the time of counselling or within some reasonable time thereafter, when this discrepancy was pointed out, obviously, the act of the respondents of not considering her as a Scheduled Caste candidate, cannot be faulted with. This Court is not oblivious to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 752, as followed in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779. However, even the benefit of these judgments cannot be given in this case, because herein, the petitioner failed to submit the Scheduled Caste certificate from parental side even after the Selection Committee called upon her to do so.

In light of above observations, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.