@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J@mdashHeard Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Shivani, learned J.C. to A.G. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner on the post of Police Constable as he has been selected in the examination which was held pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 2010.
2. An advertisement was published being advertisement No. 1/2010 in which applications were invited for the appointment on the post of Police Constable in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner in terms of the advertisement, applied for the said post and he appeared in the examination and was a successful candidate. The selected candidates were directed to give their joining in the districts in the column against their name in between 25.7.2011 to 27.7.2011 and accordingly the petitioner gave his joining and his residential certificate and caste certificates were sent by the respondent No. 4 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamshedpur for verification and which was verified vide letter dated 30.7.2011. However, the joining of the petitioner was not accepted for which the petitioner had also represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan, Chaibasa which was of no avail.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in which it has been stated that the residential certificate was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of its use in educational institutions and similarly the caste certificate which was issued was also for the purposes of its use in educational institutions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied and was selected contain a clause that in case of reserved candidates, a caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer or its equivalent has to be produced, but there is no mention of a residential certificate which has to be produced. It has also been submitted that the respondents are taking a frivolous plea that the certificates which had been issued by the competent authority were for educational purposes and not for the purposes of employment; and that no question has been raised with respect to their genuinity. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was one of the successful candidates and was having in his possession the necessary requirement as mandated in advertisement No. 1/2010 and therefore, in such circumstances, the respondents should have accepted the joining of the petitioner.
5. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been submitted by the learned J.C. to A.G. that the caste certificate and the residential certificate are essential criteria which are necessary to be produced before acceptance of joining and even though the petitioner may have successfully competed in the examination, but absence of relevant documents would negate the eligibility of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that in terms of notification No. 3389 dated 22.9.2001, the petitioner has to submit a residential certificate, as residential certificate which has been submitted was for the purpose of educational institutions only and therefore, the joining of the petitioner has rightly been declined by the authorities in absence of the documents as indicated in letter No. 1324 dated 30.7.2011 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur.
6. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner in terms of advertisement No. 1/2010 had applied and had successfully competed in the written examination and the only hitch with respect to his joining was the fact that the petitioner could not produce the residential certificate and the caste certificate before the authorities. In the counter affidavit, the letter of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur dated 30.7.2011 has been brought on record on the subject with reference to verification of the residential certificate submitted by the petitioner wherein a distinction has been sought to be made that the residential certificate which was produced by the petitioner was for the purposes of its use in educational institutions only and not for the purposes of employment, the petitioner was required to submit a residential certificate in terms of notification dated 3389 dated 22.9.2001. The respondents have thus refused to accept the joining of the petitioner on non-submission of the relevant certificates in terms of the notification issued by the State Government. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in which advertisement No. 1/10 has been brought on record and a perusal of the advertisement would reveal that the same is silent with respect to submission of a residential certificate. The advertisement apart from other necessary documents also includes submission of caste certificate in case of candidates in reserved category. Although, the advertisement No. 1/2010 is silent with respect to submission of residential certificate, but even otherwise if the residential certificate is/was required to be submitted and which has been submitted by the petitioner, the respondents again discriminated or deprived the petitioner by making a distinction between the residential certificate issued for the purposes of educational institutions and residential certificate issued for the purpose of employment as admittedly the advertisement itself is also silent with that respect. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the notification as contained in Memo No. 3389 dated 22.9.2001 has already been quashed by this. Court in the case of "Prashant Vidyarthi v. State of Jharkhand and Others" reported in (2003)1 JCR 3 (Jhr.) As regards the caste certificate, in the counter affidavit, similar stand has been taken that the same was issued for the purposes of educational institutions and not for employment purposes, whereas advertisement No. 1/2010 is once again silent and it does not speak that the caste certificate has also to be submitted which has been prepared for the purposes of employment only.
7. The respondents have not accepted the joining of the petitioner for the reasons which have been mentioned in the counter affidavit. As has been indicated above, requirement of residential certificate in terms of notification as contained in Memo No. 3389 dated 22.9.2001 has already been quashed by this Court and since the advertisement itself does not contemplate submission of caste and residential certificates issued by the competent authority for the purposes of employment alone, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his joining on such score alone. In this context, I have been fortified by the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.S. No. 935 of 2013 in the case of "Suman Kumari v. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary & Others".
8. Learned J.C. to A.G. has sought to distinguish the above noted judgment by submitting that the petitioner in the said case was already in service whereas the joining of the petitioner in the present case has not been accepted. The contention of learned J.C. to A.G. cannot be accepted solely on the ground that the case under reference and in the present case demands were made with respect to certificates which were never mentioned in the advertisement and in such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner taking assistance from the judgment under reference is justified. The respondents are therefore required to consider the case of the petitioner afresh taking note of the facts which have been elaborated hereinabove. This writ application is thus disposed of remitting the matter to the respondent No. 3 who shall take a decision on the joining of the petitioner without insisting for submission of residential or caste certificate issued for the purpose of employment and pass necessary orders within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
