{W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} 2025:CGHC:17527 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3321 of 2015 Smt. Hulsi Yadav, W/o Preetam Yadav, Aged about 28 years, R/o Ward No. 3, Godhampur, Ambikapur, Police Station and Post Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3. Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lundra, Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5. Selection Committee/General Administration Committee, through its President, Janpad Panchayat, Lundra, Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Sharadlata Puria, W/o Rajesh Puria, R/o Village Padauli, Tahsil Dhaurpur, Police Station and Post Lundra, Civil and Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.04.17 16:43:19 +0530 {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe & Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 to 3/ State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the appointing authority is justified in refusing appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she has failed to produce the live caste certificate on or before the date of selection / date of appointment? 2. The aforesaid question of law arises for consideration on the following factual backdrop: - 3. Janpad Panchayat, Lundra had issued an advertisement for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 11-1-2008 and last date for submission of applications was 9-2-2008. Pursuant to the advertisement so issued, the petitioner and respondent No.6, both, appeared in the selection process along with other candidates in OBC category. The petitioner’s temporary caste certificate was valid up to 2-6-2008 and it expired in the course of recruitment process and ultimately, on 29-5-2009, merit list was issued and on 30-5-2009, respondent No.6 and two other candidates were appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} III. Though the petitioner was more meritorious, but she was not having the permanent caste certificate / temporary live caste certificate as on 30-5-2009, however, by letter dated 5-6-2009, written by the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lundra, it has been stated that if the candidates submit temporary caste certificate and will not submit permanent caste certificate till the date of counselling, they may not be restrained from appointment and they be granted time to submit permanent caste certificate within 15 days. The petitioner was issued permanent caste certificate on 6- 6-2009 and by that time appointment order of respondent No.6 was issued on 30-5-2009 itself leading to filing of appeal by the petitioner and three other aggrieved persons before the Collector, District Surguja and ultimately, the Additional Collector vide order dated 28-4-2010 (Annexure P-2) allowed the appeal and set-aside the appointment order of respondent No.6 and two others holding that the petitioner and three other candidates are more meritorious than respondent No.6. The order of the Additional Collector was challenged by respondent No.6 and two others by filing three separate writ petitions before this Court and this Court by order dated 22-2-2013 (Annexure P-3) allowed the writ petitions setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and holding that it was not a speaking order, and {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector to decide the same afresh after hearing both the parties. On 30-7-2013 (Annexure P-4), the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja passed order dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioner and three others, which was affirmed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, by the order impugned dated 13-7-2015 (Annexure P-1) in further appeal preferred by the petitioner leading to filing of this writ petition. 4. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner was having the live caste certificate valid up to 2-6-2008, whereas the last date for filing of application for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was 9-2-2008 and meanwhile, the temporary caste certificate has lost its validity, merit list was issued on 29-5-2009 and respondent No.6 & two others were appointed on 30-5-2009. However, the petitioner obtained permanent caste certificate on 6-6-2009 vide Annexure P-6, therefore, opportunity ought to have been afforded to her to claim appointment, as, admittedly, she is more meritorious than respondent No.6. As such, the impugned orders passed by the Collector affirmed by the Commissioner deserve to be set-aside and the writ petition be allowed. {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} 5. Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3, would support the impugned orders and submit that the State is formal party and the Collector and the Commissioner have acted in quasi judicial capacity, therefore, it is respondent No.4 – Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lundra, who has to make submission supporting the order passed by it appointing respondent No.6. 6. Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 & 5, would submit that since the petitioner did not produce live caste certificate either permanent or temporary on or before the date of appointment, Janpad Panchayat, Lundra has no option except to reject her candidature and appoint respondent No.6 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and for that no exception can be taken by the petitioner, because it is not the case of the petitioner that she was having caste certificate and produced the same with some delay before the date of appointment, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, would support the impugned orders and adopt the arguments advanced by Mr. Arpit Agrawal and submit that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record carefully and meticulously as well. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was having temporary live caste certificate that she belongs to Other Backward Classes (OBC) on the last date of filing of application i.e. 9-2-2008 as mentioned in the advertisement dated 11-1-2008, which expired on 2-6-2008 and merit list was issued on 29-5-2009 and appointment order of respondent No.6 was issued on 30-5-2009. Though the petitioner was more meritorious, but her candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not have valid permanent caste certificate or temporary live caste certificate on the date of appointment which she obtained ultimately, on 6-6- 2009 pursuant to the memo dated 5-6-2009 issued by the Collector to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lundra. 10. In order to answer the question formulated in paragraph 1 of this order, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another1 may be noticed herein profitably in which the question involved before the Supreme Court was, whether a candidate who appeared in an examination under the OBC 1 (2016) 4 SCC 754 {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} category and submitted the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the OBC category or not? Their Lordships after considering the earlier decisions on the matter held that non- submission of Caste/Tribe Certificate by reserved (OBC) category candidate within cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement rendering ineligible otherwise selected candidate only on that ground it would amount to denial of equality of opportunity contemplated under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships observed in paragraphs 14 and 18 of the report as under: - “14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa2. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India3 as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University4. The learned Single Judge in Pushpa2 also considered another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh5, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the SC and ST 2 Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281 3 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 4 (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713 5 Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del 298 {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate. 18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in Pushpa2 is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney3 and Valsamma Paul4 wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney3 and Valsamma Paul4. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order6 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24-11-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)7 is hereby restored.” 6 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Ram Kumar Gijroya, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 472 : (2012) 128 DRJ 124 7 WP (C) No. 382 of 2009, order dated 24-11-2010 (Del) {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} 11. The correctness of the judgment rendered in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) was doubted in the matter of Karn Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others8 and the matter was referred to a larger Bench of three Judges. Ultimately, by order dated 28-9-20229, relying upon the earlier decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya1 (supra), declining relief to the appellant therein, their Lordships held that since the appellant (therein) was never appointed to the post in question and at this length in time, it will not be possible to grant any substantial relief to the appellant (therein). In that case also the appellant had offered his candidature as a person belonging to OBC, his candidature was however rejected by the authorities on the ground that the documents certifying him to be belonging to that community were not filed before the cut-off date. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and Karn Singh Yadav (supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case though the petitioner was having live caste certificate before the last date of submission of application i.e. 9-2-2008, but its validity stood expired on 2-6-2008 and on the date of counselling i.e. 24-2-2009, the petitioner did not have the valid live caste 8 (2024) 2 SCC 716 9 Karn Singh Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, 2022 INSC 1031 {W.P.(S)No.3321/2015} certificate either permanent or temporary and ultimately, merit list was issued on 29-5-2009 and eventually, appointment order was issued on 30-5-2009 appointing respondent No.6 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under the OBC category, though she is less meritorious than the petitioner, in absence of valid caste certificate certifying that the petitioner belongs to OBC category. On that ground itself, the Collector and the Commissioner have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which in my considered opinion is in accordance with law, as on the petitioner’s own showing, she did not have the valid caste certificate on the date of counselling i.e. 24-2-2009 and even on the date of issuance of merit list i.e. 29-5-2009 and also on the date of appointment i.e. 30-5-2009. In that view of the matter, the appeals preferred by the petitioner have rightly been dismissed by the Collector and the Commissioner in which I do not find any illegality or irregularity requiring interference by this Court. 13. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma