Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
1. Heard Sri Karan Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with
their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection list / order dated 31.01.2020, whereby the
claim of the petitioner was rejected for not submitting the newly issued caste certificate at the time of submitting his original application form; and a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the newly issued OBC certificate dated 04.02.2020 of the petitioner, which he had submitted
through e-mail dated 05.02.2020, and to permit him to appear in the interview to be conducted on 28.02.2020.
3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner, an MBBS Graduate, applied for the post of Medical Officer pursuant to the
advertisement dated 30.11.2019. In terms of the said advertisement, 138 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 19 posts were reserved for
Scheduled Tribes, 98 were reserved for Other Backward Classes, 6 posts were reserved for economically weaker sections, and 63 posts were left
unreserved. The said advertisement required candidates to submit their on-line application forms before the cut-off date of 02.01.2020. Among the
conditions stipulated in the advertisement was that the OBC certificate, valid as on the last date for submission of the application form (02.01.2020),
should be submitted. The extant Rules, applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, stipulate that a caste certificate, issued by the competent authority, shall
remain valid only for a period of three years, and not beyond. The petitioner submitted his OBC certificate dated 18.09.2008 along with his on-line
application form. Since this certificate dated 18.09.2008 ceased to remain in force after 18.09.2011, in terms of the applicable Rules, the second
respondent issued proceedings dated 31.01.2020 rejecting his candidature for not having submitted a valid OBC certificate. The said proceedings
dated 31.01.2020 permitted candidates, who were declared to have been disqualified, to make a representation on or before 10.02.2020. The
petitioner, thereafter, secured a fresh OBC certificate dated 04.02.2020, and submitted the same to the second respondent on 05.02.2020. His
representation was, however, rejected by proceedings dated 13.02.2020 on the ground that he had failed to enclose the newly issued caste certificate
along with his application form submitted on-line. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition.
4. Sri Karan Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the very fact that the petitioner had submitted an OBC certificate dated
18.09.2008, and had thereafter submitted a fresh OBC certificate dated 04.02.2020, showed that he belongs to the Other Backward Classes; the mere
fact that he did not furnish a fresh OBC caste certificate would not result in his ceasing to be a member of the OBC; he ought, therefore, to have
been extended the benefit of reservation; even otherwise, in terms of the proceedings dated 31.01.2020, yet another opportunity was given to the
petitioner to submit his caste certificate on or before 10.02.2020; the petitioner had submitted such a certificate on 05.02.2020 before the cut-off date
of 10.02.2020; and rejection of his candidature, for appearing in the interview, is arbitrary and illegal.
5. On the other hand Sri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would submit that, in terms of the advertisement dated
30.11.2019, the on-line application form, along with the upto date caste certificate, was required to be submitted before the cut-off date of 02.1.2020;
in terms of the applicable Rules, it is only the certificate issued on or after 02.01.2017 (within three years prior to the cut-off date stipulated in the
advertisement), which would be treated as a valid caste certificate; any claim to fall under the reserved category must be supported by a caste
certificate issued by the competent authority; since the caste certificate dated 18.09.2008 submitted by the petitioner was not valid, his candidature
was rightly rejected; the reasons for rejection were intimated by proceedings dated 31.01.2020; the opportunity given, in terms of the proceedings
dated 31.01.2020, to submit a representation was only regarding the reasons assigned for rejection in the proceedings dated 31.01.2020; such a clause
does not permit submission of a fresh caste certificate after the cut-off date of 02.01.2020; and the action of the second respondent, in rejecting the
petitioner’s candidature, is neither arbitrary nor illegal.
6. The benefit of reservation, be it under the OBC category or the SC or ST categories, can only be claimed by a candidate on his producing a valid
caste certificate issued by the competent authority. Admittedly, in terms of the applicable Rules, the caste certificate issued by the competent authority
is valid only for a period of three years. Consequently, it is only the certificate issued by the competent authority on or after 02.01.2017 (within three
years prior to the cut-off date stipulated in the advertisement), which would be deemed to be a valid caste certificate. The petitioner submitted his
caste certificate dated 18.09.2008 which, in terms of the applicable Rules, is not valid.
7. The conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 30.11.2019 are applicable to all candidates. As noted hereinabove, the said advertisement
stipulates a condition that the caste certificate, submitted after the cut-off date of 02.01.2020, would not be accepted. The order of rejection dated
31.01.2020 makes it clear that the petitioner’s application was rejected as he had failed to submit a valid caste certificate before the cut-off date
of 02.01.2020. The opportunity to make a representation, as stipulated in the order dated 31.01.2020, is only regarding the validity of the rejection
order, and cannot be construed as extension of time to submit documents, which ought to have been submitted before the cut-off date of 02.01.2020.
For instance, if the petitioner had submitted a valid OBC certificate before the cut-off date of 02.01.2020, and yet his candidature was rejected by the
2nd respondent on the erroneous premise that he had failed to do so, the proceedings dated 31.01.2020 permitted him to submit a representation
informing the authorities concerned that they had erred in holding that he had not submitted such a certificate when, in fact, he had. Admittedly, such
is not the case here. The petitioner, on his own admission, had failed to submit a valid caste certificate before the cut-off date of 02.01.2020. The
second respondent was, therefore, justified in rejecting his candidature.
8. In more or less identical circumstances, we had, in Manju Arya vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 57 of 2020
dated 25.02.2020), rejected a similar claim of an applicant.
9. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the action taken by the second respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature for appearing
in the interview scheduled to be held on 28.02.2020.
10. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
