AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
The petitioner's claim for appointment as a Maths Mistress was declined, on account of her failure to produce the requisite Backward Class Certificate issued by the competent authority, prior to the last date of submission of the application.
By filing the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure P-8), whereby the DPI (respondent no.2), in view of the directions passed by this Court in a contempt petition bearing no. COCP-128-2017 in CWP-6032-2011, re-considered her case in the light of the judgement dated 02.11.2011, rendered in CWP-13154-2011, titled as "Mamta vs. State of Punjab and others" and rejected her claim.
Succinctly, the petitioner applied for the post of Math Mistress in the Backward Class Category, against advertisement dated 23.09.2009. In the said advertisement and the corrigendum issued on 27.09.2009, the following conditions were laid down:-
“4.The candidates will ensure that they must fulfill all the prescribed qualifications and conditions on the last date of submission of the application. In case before or after the appointment, it is found that they don't fulfill any qualification/condition or the information given is found false or incorrect, then their right of candidature will be cancelled and criminal proceedings will be initiated separately under the rules.
6.The certificate of Backward Class is to be of within one year from the last date of submission of applications and this Certificates should be in terms of the letter dated 17.01.1994 and 17.08.2005 issued by the Department of Welfare, Punjab Government.
As per corrigendum published in different newspapers dated 27.09.2009 the condition No. 6 was as follow: -
“The certificate of Backward Class category should not be more than one year prior to the last date of submission of applications and this certificates should be as per the Punjab Government, Department of Welfare Dated Letter No. 1/41/93-RS/209 24.02.2009."
The last date for furnishing online form was 09.10.2009, upto 5:00 p.m. The petitioner attached the certificate of Backward Class issued in her favour by the office of Tehsildar, which was duly verified by the Executive Magistrate concerned, of dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure P-1). At the time of scrutiny of documents, i.e. on 14.07.2010, the petitioner again submitted a fresh Backward Class Certificate which was issued on the same date i.e. on 14.07.2010. The candidature of the petitioner was not considered as she did not possess Backward Class Certificate, issued within last one year from the last date of submission of the application form.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No.6032 of 2011, which was disposed of on 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-7), in terms of the decision rendered in Mamta's case. The respondent-authority did not consider the case of the present petitioner in view of the directions (supra), which led the present petitioner to file a contempt petitioner bearing COCP bearing No.128 of 2017, which was disposed of on 09.03.2017, with a direction upon the respondent-authority to pass an appropriate order in terms of the ratio laid down in Mamta's case (supra), within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order. Whereupon, the respondent authority considered the case of the present petitioner and found that her case is not covered by the said verdict, and by passing the impugned speaking order dated 10.04.2017, her claim was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in an attempt to throw challenge to order (supra), submits that the petitioner possessed a valid Backward Class Certificate issued on 11.09.2007, which was valid even on the last date of submission of application form.
In order to lend vigor to his arguments, he placed reliance on the instructions issued by the Department of Welfare, Punjab Government, on 05.12.1996 (Annexure P-9), and subsequent, instructions dated 02.08.2016 (Annexure P-10).
By referring to the notifications (supra), he further submits that the Department of Welfare, has deprecated the practise of various authorities/institutions prescribing their own format for the Backward Class Certificate, and has instructed that the same shall be issued by the particular authority, which is different from the authority prescribed in the instructions issued by the Department of Welfare. Therefore, a common direction was issue that the SC/Backward Class Certificate issued by the competent authority as per the instructions of Department of Welfare, shall be accepted by all authorities and institutions, as valid.
He further submits that as per the latest instructions of the Department of Welfare on 02.08.2016, it is clearly clarified that the Backward Class Certificate once issued , is valid forever, and whenever, a person/student applies for admission or for any post, then he may be called only for Creamy Layer (income) declaration as per performa, issued by the Welfare Department, not issuing the new Backward Class Certificate.
Finally, he submits that the petitioner may be directed to be considered as Backward Class category candidate, instead of General Category candidate.
On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposes the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and submits that as per the Conditions No.4 of the advertisement the candidate is required to fulfil all the prescribed qualifications and conditions, on the last date of the submission of the application. As per Condition No.6, the candidate should possess Backward Class certificate, issued within one year from the last date of submission of the applications. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the said certificate in the same terms, therefore, she was rightly considered in the General Category.
He further submits that the similar controversy against the present advertisement has already been considered by this Court in CWP No. 22198 of 2012 titled as “Charanjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others”, wherein it was held that the terms and conditions of the advertisement (supra) are sacrosanct, and cannot be changed on account of hardships pleaded by the candidate.
He further submits that the Government has taken a conscious decision to cancel even all the waiting-list, vide Public Notice dated 09.08.2013 (Annexure R-2), and the said act of the Government was challenged in a bunch of petitions led by CWP-6031-2014, which were also dismissed.
Finally, he submits that the instant petition, suffers from delay and latches, as with the efflux of time much water has flown and the Department of School Education, had subsequently, initiated various recruitment processes, which had attained finality. The details of the same as mentioned in the reply dated 21.11.2019, is extracted hereinafter:-
| Sr. No. | Date of Advertisement | Number of Posts |
| 1. | 07.05.2011 | 3442 |
| 2. | 09.09.2012 | 5178 |
3.01.10.2013 764 (Rashtriya Madhyamik Sikhsha Abhiyaan Authority Schools_)
| 4. | 01.10.2013 | 20(Adarsh Schools) |
| 5. | 01.10.2013 | 127(Model Schools) |
| 6. | 20.11.2015 | 6060 |
| 7. | 10.09.2017 | 3582 |
This Court has considered the rival submissions, and has also perused the entire case file.
What is not disputable is that the petitioner did not submit the Backward Class Certificate, which was not issued within one year of the cut off date of submission of application. Therefore, in view of the Condition No.4 of the advertisement (supra), the petitioner is not eligible to be considered against the Backward Class. So far as, the reliance as placed by the petitioner upon the instructions issued vide notification dated 05.12.1996 (Annexure P-9), is concerned, that is highly mis-placed. The said instructions clearly speak that any certificate issued by the competent authority, will be considered as a valid. However, the said instructions never specify that the Backward Class certificate once issued will be valid for life time. The relevant is extracted hereinafter:
“(2)Cases have come to notice on which the authorities/institutions concerned have prescribed their own formats for such certificates or have insisted that they be issued by a particular authority, which is different from the authority prescribed in the Instructions of the Department of Welfare. Cases have also come to notice where the authorities have refused to accept attested photocopies of these Certificates and have insisted on the originals. All this causes needless harassment for the applicant as each Individual normally applies to several Institutions/offices at a time.
3.It has therefore been decided that the Scheduled Caste/Backward Class Certificate issued by the competent authority as per the instructions of the Welfare Department will be accepted by all authorities and institutions as valid. To further simplify the procedure it has been decided that in the first instance It will be sufficient for the candidate seeking admission or employment or other facility to indicate in the application form whether he/she belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Backward Classes or not. Attested photocopies of the Certificate may be obtained only from the selected/wait listed candidates”
The aforesaid instructions of 2016, cannot held applicable retrospectively. The issue of validity of the said instructions, has been examined the co-ordinate bench in Charanjit Kaur's case (supra), and held the said condition sustainable, in view of the introduction of concept of creamy layer amongst the Backward Classes, following of ruling of Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India and another” AIR 1993 SC 477. It was also held that the said condition does not possibly cause any prejudice to Backward Class Category candidates, by submitting Backward Class certificate issued one year prior to the cut off date. The above instructions of 1996, were also considered and it was held that same does not debar the Government from seeking such certificate as desired in the advertisement, which has been issued one year prior to the cut-off date. The relevant is extracted hereinafter:-
“8.As said before, the present advertisement under consideration was issued on 23rd September, 2009 and therefore the income criteria would be governed by the Punjab Government instructions dated 24th February, 2009. Due to the introduction of the concept of creamy-layer among Backward Classes following the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1993 SC 477, Backward Classes unlike Scheduled Castes to be eligible is a shifting boundary and therefore the insistence of prescribing time periods in direct recruitment advertisements for production of contemporary Backward Class certificates to demonstrate that a candidate validly falls in the category of reservation with passing time with eyes set within income limits and whether they are below the maximum prescribed. This is unlike members of the scheduled caste category, who are governed by the status at birth without any income criteria. It is common ground that the petitioner did not produce her Backward Class certificate on the date of application within the range of one year prior to last date of application. Instead, she relied on a certificate dated 14th September, 2007, which was stale and it could not be anybody's case that she was eligible on the date when she applied.
9 In the written statement filed by the State, the respondents stand steadfast on condition No.4 of the advertisement, which mandates candidates to ensure they fulfill all the prescribed qualifications and conditions on or before the last date of submission of applications. Condition No.6 stipulated that the certificate of Backward Class is to be valid within one year from the last date of submission of applications and this certificate should be in terms of the letters dated 17th January, 1994 and 17th August, 2005 issued by the Department of Welfare, Punjab Government. The petitioner was fully aware of the prescribed qualifications and conditions and also the fact that these conditions have to be met by the candidate on or before the last date of submission of applications. Moreover, no prejudice can possibly be caused to any Backward Class category candidate by submitting the Backward Class certificate issued one year prior to 9th October, 2010.
10.It may be true that the Act does not debar the Government/appointing authority to seek a certificate as desired in the advertisement. The instructions dated 5(th) December, 1996 also do not debar the Government from seeking such certificate, which has been issued one year prior to cut-off date. These instructions are directory in nature and no applicant can insist that relaxation be accorded to avoid giving proof of eligibility when once the conditions of appointment have been duly notified and applied uniformly to all the candidates. The State relies on the decision rendered in CWP No.5560 of 22011 titled 'Jaspal Kaur & others Vs. State of Punjab & others' on 2 (nd) November, 2011 on the issue involved, which has been decided against the petitioner. Conditions No.4 & 5 were applied to non-suit the petitioner. It was not obligatory on the recruiting authority to consider the Backward Class certificate dated 10 (th) November, 2009 (Annex P-2) produced before the Selection Committee. Indisputably, the certificate was obtained by the petitioner one month after the last date of submission of application on time. On both counts, in the considered view of this Court the petitioner has no case.”
The case of present petitioner, is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the Charanjit Kaur's case (supra). The legality of the said judgement was challenged by filing LPA bearing No.1233 of 2016, which was dismissed. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in Charanjit Kaur's case (supra), this Court finds no merit in the instant petition.
It is also apposite to note that the advertisement was issued in the year 2009 for appointment on contract basis, on a consolidated salary, for a period of one year, extendable for a further period of three years and six months. The appointment letters to the selected candidates were issued way back in the year 2011, and all the selected candidates who joined the Department have since been granted the regular pay scale with effect from 06.04.2014. The waiting list had already been scrapped vide Public Notice dated 09.08.2013 (Annexure R-2), which was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court in a bunch of petitions led by CWP No.6031 of 2014. Therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in the instant petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.