@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mr Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.—In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Office Order No.54/Accts. Dated 30.01.2015, whereby and where under the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant of Jharkhand High Court has been cancelled. A further prayer has been made for quashing the letter as contained in Memo No. 15456/Accts dated 6.12.2014, by which the petitioner has been directed to submit residential certificate for employment purpose. The petitioner has also prayed for all consequential benefits and back wages after quashing the order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner.
2. Narration of the facts as mentioned in the writ application is that pursuant to an advertisement bearing Advertisement No.2/2012 dated 20.09.2012, in which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up the vacant post of Assistants in Jharkhand High Court, the petitioner had applied on 9.11.2012. Such application was made in the prescribed form under B.C. I category as the petitioner belongs to backward category in the State of Jharkhand. In terms of clause 6-7 of the advertisement, the candidates were required to enclose the caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner or by competent authority, verified and countersigned by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner in case of reserved category only as well as photo copy of Domicile Certificate. On completion of selection process, the petitioner was issued an offer of appointment on the post of Assistant vide Appointment Letter No.7150/ACCTS dated 21.10.2013 wherein he was directed to submit apart from other documents, copy of the caste certificate. Pursuant to receipt of offer of appointment dated 25.10.2013, the petitioner had applied afresh for Caste Certificate and Residential Certificate before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner had submitted the caste certificate bearing no.604/2013 dated 13.11.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur at the time of joining. After verification of the documents, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant where he was discharging his duties. However, by virtue of Memo No. 9362/ACCTS. dated 10/15.7.2014 issued by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner was directed to submit a caste certificate as well as residential certificate issued/countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner for employment purpose, if available within a period of one month from the date of receipt of Memo. Consequent to such letter issued by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner had again applied for caste certificate and residential certificate for employment purpose, pursuant to which, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur had issued a caste certificate dated 2.8.2014 for employment purpose but no residential certificate for employment purpose was issued although the petitioner was in possession of residential certificate for education purpose. The petitioner was informed by the C.O., Pakur that in terms of Circular dated 8.8.2002 of the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, only the residential certificate for educational purposes can be made available. The petitioner was once again served a Memo No. 15456/Accts.dated 6.12.2014 issued by the respondent no. 3 directing him to submit residential certificate for employment purpose, in response of which, the petitioner had submitted a reply enclosing a copy of the judgment passed in the case of Suman Kumari v. State of Jharkhand & Ors). However, subsequent to the reply of the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled vide office order no. 54/Accts. dated 30.01.2015 on account of non compliance of the direction as contained in Memo No.15456/Accts. Dated 6.12.2014. A further representation was made by the petitioner on 31.01.2015 for reconsideration of his case but no response has been forthcoming, thereby constraining the petitioner to prefer the present writ application.
3. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jay Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.R. Choudhary, appearing for respondent no.3.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order canceling the appointment of the petitioner is without any basis as in absence of issuance of residential certificate for employment purposes by the competent authority, such appointment could not have been cancelled by the respondent no. 3. It has been submitted that the caste certificate for employment purposes had duly been submitted by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot be deprived from getting benefit of reservation policy, which is prevalent in the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel submits that the caste certificate itself contains the residential proof of the petitioner and the respondents cannot insist for submission of residential certificate for employment purpose as whatever was made available to the petitioner by way of residential certificate for educational purpose had been duly submitted before the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel further submits that without resorting to an enquiry, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, which is against the principles of natural justice. It has been submitted that issue of defining local person has already been set at rest in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Prashant Vidyarthi v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Further submission has been advanced that the authority cannot insist for residential certificate for appointment purpose as a backward caste candidate as without any basis one cannot take away the right vested to the petitioner by virtue of Article 341 read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Nirbhay Prakash v. State of Jharkhand in WPS No. 1833 of 2015.
5. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G. appearing for the State, has referred to the Office Memorandum dated 17.11.2011 and has submitted that in terms of the said Memorandum, the residence of a person in a particular locality assumes special significance. It has been submitted that in order to claim reservation, the residential proof is of primary consideration. It has also been submitted that in terms of letter dated 18.10.2005, a person who has migrated from another State on the production of a genuine certificate issued to his father by the State of Origin, the prescribed authority of the State Government can issue a SC/ST Certificate. Learned Additional Advocate General has further referred to the communication dated 22.02.1985, wherein it has been clarified that a SC/ST Person, who has migrated from the State of Origin will be deemed to derive benefit from the State of Origin and not from the State to which he has migrated. It has, therefore, been submitted that such circumstances do indicate that the respondent no. 3 was justified in canceling the appointment of the petitioner.
6. Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, has submitted that the advertisement itself had enumerated that the reservation policy of the State Government shall be made applicable only to the candidates belonging to the State of Jharkhand. It has been submitted that the advertisement also included the requirement of enclosing a Domicile Certificate issued by the competent authority in case reservation is claimed. Learned counsel further adds that in spite of repeatedly being asked to furnish the proof of residential certificate for employment purpose, the petitioner did not submit the said certificate as it was only meant for educational purposes only. Mrs. Choudhary therefore submits that on account of non compliance of the office order issued by the respondent no. 3 on failure of the petitioner to submit the desired certificate, his appointment was cancelled, which was in accordance with law in absence of the compliance on the part of the petitioner to submit documents in adherence to the reservation policy prevalent in the State of Jharkhand. However, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has also stated that the application filed by the petitioner dated 31.01.2015 before the respondent no. 3 is under consideration.
7. Indisputably, pursuant to the application made by the petitioner in terms of Advertisement No. 2/2012, he was issued an appointment letter, pursuant to which he had joined and was discharging his duties. On a communiqué being received by him, the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate for employment purpose. The respondent no. 3 in his communication dated 6.12.2014 had directed the petitioner to submit residential certificate for employment purpose issued by the competent authority in availing the benefits of reservation policy, failing which the appointment shall be deemed to be cancelled. The petitioner had applied before the Circle Office, Pakur for issuance of residential certificate for employment purpose but the same has been declined by the C.O., Pakur vide Memo No. 1443 dated 27.12.2014 by taking resort to the Notification of the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha dated 8.8.2002 which defined a local resident. Such notification was already under consideration by the Full Bench in the case of Prashant Vidyarthi & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors and definition of a local person as per the said notification has been set at rest by the Full Bench. The petitioner was made available the residential certificate for educational purposes, which was duly submitted by the petitioner but on failure to submit a residential certificate for employment purposes which was in any way not being issued, the petitioner was prevented from submitting such documents and which formed the basis for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner.
8. A glance at Advertisement No. 2/2012 would reveal that the enclosures included caste certificate as well as Domicile Certificate issued by the competent authority in case of claiming reservation and the same did not specify that the certificates which are to be submitted are for employment purposes only. Similar issue has been considered by this Court in WPS No. 935 of 2013 Suman Kumari v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary & Ors wherein it was held that "in totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons discussed herein above therefore the insistence upon production of such certificate vide letter no. 584 dated 1st April, 2011 (Annexure-4), cannot be said to be based upon any rationale justification. Therefore the respondents shall not insist upon production of such documents of caste and residence certificate especially issued for employment purposes upon the petitioner as required by the letter dated 1st April 2011 in question." In a similar issue, this Court in WPS No. 1833 of 2015 (Nirbhay Prakash v. The State of Jharkhand), had held as follows:-
"7. The petitioner had participated in the preliminary examination as well as in the interview and no impediment were caused by the respondent-authority in the transition of the petitioner from one phase of the examination to the other. If at all, the authorities were not satisfied with the local residential certificate or the caste certificate , appropriate steps could have been taken at the initial stage. Now, when the petitioner has successfully competed and is awaiting the issuance of appointment letter, it is highly arbitrary on the part of the authorities to come out with a new stand.
9. The aforesaid order in WPS No. 1833 of 2015 was passed on the basis of the judgment in the case of Madan Prakash & others v. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2006(4) JLJR 685, wherein it was held as follows:-
"5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The residential certificates and caste certificates , issued by the competent authorities, are placed on record by the petitioners. All these certificates have been issued after the creation of the State of Jharkhand by the competent authorities in the State of Jharkhand. As far Domicile Certificates are concerned, petitioners have been shown to be the residents of the places in the territory of Jharkhand and even in caste certificates, issued, it is mentioned that they are the residents of Bokaro, Jharkhand. In all the certificates, they have been shown as "Janamvasi" of Jharkhand. It is not in dispute that petitioner''s applications were entertained and they were permitted to participate in the Preliminary as well as Main Examinations and were declared successful. It is only at the time of counselling that the petitioners have been prevented from seeking admissions on account of their mentioning "Permanent residence in the State of Bihar".
10. The facts enumerated above coupled with the judicial pronouncements on the issue would comprehensively indicate that the appointment of the petitioner could not have been cancelled only on account of failure to submit residential certificate for employment purposes. In such circumstances, therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the letter as contained in Memo NO. 15456/Accts dated 6.12.2014 issued by the respondent no. 3 as well as Office Order No. 54/Accts dated 30.01.2015 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant of Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi on account of non compliance of the direction dated 6.12.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The respondent no. 3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and shall not insist upon production of residential certificate for employment purposes.
12. Since the petitioner has been illegally divested from his post by canceling his appointment, he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which may accrue to him on account of his reinstatement along with full back wages.
13. This writ petition is allowed.
