Sumathi R vs Chairman And Others

Abdul Quddhose, J

The petitioner had applied under the BC category pursuant to the first respondent's Notification dated 09.09.2021 inviting applications for the selection and appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade-I and Computer Instructor Grade-I. The backward class community certificate was also uploaded by the petitioner along with her application. After completion of certificate verification process, the provisional selection list was declared by the second respondent on 14.09.2022. In the said provisional selection list, the petitioner's name is disclosed, but, in the remarks column, it shows that the selection of the petitioner has been withheld as the community certificate is in her husband's name and further, the provisional selection list shows that the petitioner's candidature/name has been considered under other category (OC) and selected under the OC category, though the petitioner had applied only under BC category, to which category she belongs.

The petitioner has given a representation on 16.09.2022 narrating all the aforementioned facts and has also produced the proof of her father's community certificate and requested the second respondent to add her name in the second provisional selection list under BC community category so that she can avail the benefits of reservation in the final selection process. Admittedly, the said representation has not been considered till date. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the relevant documents filed along with this writ petition and would submit that the petitioner belongs only to BC category and the community certificate also confirms the same. But under the provisional selection list dated 14.09.2022, the second respondent has erroneously withheld the petitioner's selection on the ground that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is in her husband's name and the provisional selection list shows that the petitioner's candidature/name has been considered under other category(OC) and selected under the OC category, whereas, the petitioner ought to have been selected under BC category.

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner's representation dated 16.09.2022 is considered on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the two orders passed by this Court on 18.07.2017 in WP No.18200 of 2017 and 16.10.2019 in WP No.29488 of 2019 and would submit that in identical matters this Court had entertained writ petitions and has held that when the candidate has rightly mentioned the category to which he/she belongs in the application, a pragmatic view will have to be taken.

This Court is also in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforementioned decisions. In the decisions referred to supra, the community certificates were not enclosed and therefore, the petitioner in this writ petition stands on a better footing where she had enclosed the community certificate.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the second respondent to pass final orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.09.2022 referred to supra on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.