Ritu Raj Raji vs District Magistrate, Raib Areli

Sheo Kumar Singh, J.—Heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned advocate who appeared in support of this petition, Alka Verma who appeared as Central Government Counsel and learned Standing Counsel who represented respondents no.2 and 3.

Prayer in this petition is for a direction to the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 to submit required information to the Senior Supdt. of Post Offices, Faizabad at the earliest and to allow the petitioner to join his duties as postal Assistant like other candidates.

When the writ petition was entertained, after hearing learned State Counsel in presence of concerned Tehsildar who was summoned, on 25.3.2009, this Court directed that a vacancy shall be kept reserved for the petitioner.

Small issue is in this petition, although that relates to factual aspect, but in the given set of facts that needs attention and a fresh direction to the concerned officials.

There is no doubt about the fact that petitioner was duly selected candidate pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Postal Assistant in an examination which was held on 09.12.07 in respect to vacancies for the year 2006 against the vacancies meant for Schedule Tribe candidates. The select list showing name of the petitioner at serial no.20 as Annexure(1) to the petition is there It is thereafter, petitioner claims to have been sent for the training which he also completed. When question of joining on the post/issuance of appointment letter was in offing, in respect to the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner showing him belonging to the Schedule Tribe, in the year 1995 was subjected to fresh verification by Tehsil official, upon which, petitioner claims that on the pretext that petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste,he is not to be given appointment. It is at that stage, petitioner came to this Court.

During pendency of this writ petition, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court from time to time, exercise of verification to the issuance of certificate is said to have taken place and certain reports along with documents are also annexed with the counter affidavits filed by both governments.Apart from documents and the statement of facts in the writ petition, there appears to be supplementary affidavit from the side of petitioner annexing additional documents.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father was also issued caste certificate showing him to be of Schedule Tribe as far back as in the seventies and it is thereafter a certificate which is available with the petitioner dated 12.3.82 is also annexed along with supplementary affidavit. Petitioner''s claim is that Schedule Tribe is also mentioned in the family register besides issuance of certificates to that effect to various family members of the petitioner.

In the certificate so issued, mention of word ''Raji'' and at the same time, the mention of word '' patharkatta'' is to be taken note. In the schedule indicating list of Schedule Tribe/word '' Raji'' finds place. ''Pathakatta'' is not a caste/word which finds place either in the list of schedule caste what to say in the list of Schedule Tribe, as being claimed by the respondents'' side that '' pathakatta'' belongs to schedule caste.

The important aspect which this Court can notice is that if the petitioner''s father was issued caste certificate showing him to be ST as far back as about 3540 years, then at that time, something wrong for the future in anticipation could not have been imagined and thus, if a particular fact came into existence with all kind of bonafide with a man then after such a long time, some malice/mischief cannot be attributed and of that particular fact person with all gap in generation is to take advantage.

Respondents'' side referred to certain inquiries and the reports and mentioning of the factum of class in a sale deed which is said to have been executed from petitioner''s side. Sale deed is of the year 2007 and submission is that it is just due to inadvertence and proceeding for its correction is going/pending before the competent authority.

Be as it may, petitioner claims to be a selected candidate pursuant to the advertisement in which, no fault has been pointed out. Petitioner claims to have completed training. Petitioner claims to be hundred percent physically handicapped man having both his legs imputed.

The reports which are placed along with the counter affidavit just indicates that ''pathakatta''(shilkar) are not found in the list of Schedule Tribes and only ''Raji'' is mentioned and by nature of work/present status of the petitioner is found to be of that work/class, he is not to be treated/accepted to be Schedule Tribe.

At this stage, submission of respondents'' side is that caste ''Raji'' is not available in the district is to be noted but at the same time, a surprise is to be expressed by this Court that if at any particular time that class was available then at what point of time entire class disappeared from the district.

Irrespective of the aforesaid, there is no clear dispute about the issuance of certificate in the name of petitioner''s father and if that is accepted to be correct on its verification and as that continued for such a long, since about 3540 years, matter has to be viewed with all kind of positive approach by leaving aside the technicalities and rigidness if the facts are found to be in favour of petitioner. Petitioner being selected to a particular post, he being hundred percent physically handicapped, is not to be just favored or to be treated with sympathetic approach but in the given set of facts, this Court is convinced that the matter has not been dealt by taking note of various positive evidence, facts and circumstances and thus, keeping in mind the caste certificate issued to the petitioner''s father, the documents in respect to the service of petitioner''s father, if that is filed before learned District Collector, within a period of three weeks from today, then it will be the concern of the the learned Collector to personally examine the facts and evidence so as to enable him to form opinion on the issue. Petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation in respect to his case by annexing all documents which may be in support of his claim on which, reliance is said to be placed so as to require the District Collector to deal with them in the light of inquiry which the authority may feel it proper.

In the event, things find favour to the petitioner''s side as this Court already directed the post to be kept reserved, on a decision, in petitioner''s favour, it will be the concern of all concerned to get the same executed and in the event something is not favourable, then cogent reason will have to be recorded. For the reasons given above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction so indicated above.

Needed exercise is to be completed by learned District Collector, preferably within a period of three month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with fresh move by the petitioner, as permitted.

It is made clear at this stage that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and thus, it will be an independent exercise/discretion of the authority concerned while taking decision in the matter.