AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi V. Malimath, J.
The respondent - Corporation issued a notification inviting the application for eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer (Civil) and Asst. Accounts Officer vide notification dated 26.08.2009. That there were 496 vacancies to be filled up and 20 vacancies were reserved for category-I and 1 post was reserved for Category-I - Physically Handicap Person (PHP) quota. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer Electrical.
The petitioner''s case is that he was the only candidate, who applied for the post under category-I - Physically Handicap Person (PHP) quota. A call letter for verification of original documents on 26.11.2009 at Annexure-F was addressed to the petitioner. It was stated that his provisional academic percentage is 58.02 and he has to appear with the originals and one set of photocopy of the following documents thereon. Item No. 11 therein is that Caste and Income certificate issued recently by the competent Revenue Authority. Accordingly, he furnished all the documents and appeared on 07.12.2009. The provisional selection list was published on 08.02.2010. The name of the petitioner was to be found at Sl. No. 493. Thereafter a final selection list vide Annexure-A was published. He was not selected. Hence, he filed the instant writ petition challenging the same.
That the respondents have selected the 3rd respondent belongs to the same category. However the 3rd respondent is not a Physically Handicap Person. He only belongs to the same category of caste that of the petitioner. Challenging his non selection and selection of the 3rd respondent, the instant petition filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the respondents committed a legal malafide in rejecting his application. When the verification of the documents was sought for he was directed to furnish his caste and income certificate issued by the competent authority. Annexure-D is a certificate in the Form Annexure-A issued by the Assistant Commissioner indicating the caste of the petitioner. It was the requirement of item No. 11 of the call letter for verification and after verifying the caste certificate as well as the other documents the provisional list was issued on 08.02.2010 wherein his name was shown. Therefore when the verification of the documents have taken place and everything is in order, it is only then his name was included in the provisional list. Therefore non selecting him is erroneous.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. He contends that the caste certificate should have been issued in Form-E vide Annexure-K''. What is produced by the petitioner is in terms of the Annexure-D (Form-A). That Annexure-K certificate is dated 25.02.2010. The final selection list was published on 20.02.2010. Therefore even though Annexure-K certificate is the appropriate form, the same was submitted after the final list was published. The caste certificate produced by him in terms of the Annexure-D is not applicable. The same pertains to applying for appointment to posts under the Government of India. This is not the certificate as required by the respondents. The certificate should have been issued in terms of Annexure-K, hence his candidature was not accepted. The same was given to the 3rd respondent in accordance with law with merit. Hence, he pleads to dismiss the petition.
Respondent No. 3 is served and unrepresented.
On hearing learned counsels, V am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The contention of the respondents is that the caste certificate should be in Form-E, but what has been submitted to them is in Form-A. The call letter for verification of original documents in terms of Annexure-F would show that various certificates were sought to be produced. Item No. 11 is with regard to the caste and income certificate. It only narrates that the same should be issued by a competent authority. Learned counsel admits that so far as Annexure-D is concerned namely the caste certificate issued in the Form-A is issued by the competent authority. However, what is disputed is that the said form is applicable for appointment of posts under the Government of India and not for the respondents. The recruitment is sought for under that category of Form-E. This Form-E is not submitted by the petitioner. Therefore his application was rejected. Since his application was rejected he could not be considered to the said category. V am unable to accept such contention. Item No. 11 is clear that it should be a certificate by the competent authority. There is no indication that the certificate has to be produced in Form-E or in any form. When it is undisputed by the respondents that the Assistant Commissioner is the competent authority to issue Annexure-D the same fulfills the criteria as prescribed in item No. 11 of the call letter for verification of documents. Therefore the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. It is rejected.
The further issue involved herein is the fact that the petitioner was asked to furnish all documents on 07.12.2009. He has done so. The respondents have verified all the documents. On verifying the documents a provisional selection list has been prepared. In terms whereof the name of the petitioner is to be found at Sl. No. 493 under the reserved category as well as physically handicap person quota. When all documents have been verified and they are found to be verified it is only then the petitioner''s name could find a place in the provisional list. That is how the respondents have considered the documents filed by the petitioner. Thereafter there is no reason assigned by the respondents as to why the petitioner was not given the job. There is no material produced before the Court in terms of the statement of objection nor records to justify the action of the respondents. It is a clear case of legal malafide by the respondents. They have deliberately and intentionally declined to give the post to the petitioner when all documents are in order. There is no reason as to why he was denied the said post. Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the denial of the post is a gross injustice committed to him.
The further contention is that the 3rd respondent is more meritorious than the petitioner and that is why he was selected. Y am unable to accept such contention. There is no comparison with the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The category of the caste of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is one and the same. However the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. The 3rd respondent is not physically handicapped. A specific post has been reserved for the physically handicapped person. He therefore comes under that category. The respondent cannot claim the position of that of the petitioner. The contention that the 3rd respondent is more meritorious cannot be accepted. The question of comparison of the merit would come into place with similarly placed persons. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are not similarly placed. Hence, such contention is not acceptable.
It is undisputed that the petitioner is meritorious. It is undisputed so far as the percentage of marks is concerned. He was asked to submit his documents to verify his status. There is no dispute with regard to the academic qualification also. The only dispute is with regard to the Form of the certificate. As held herein above, the format not being a criteria as demanded by the respondents and when that is only reason assigned by them, the non selection therefore cannot be sustainable.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The 1st and 2nd respondents are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from the date of appointment of the 3rd respondent. He shall be granted all service benefits with continuity of service with effect from the said date onwards without arrears. Such orders shall be passed within a period of twelve weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. Rule made absolute.