Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, a review petition was filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 12-06-2023 and consequently, allow petitioner to join ongoing selection process i.e. Stage-III under advertisement for the batch of 02/2023 issued for recruitment post of Navik (General Duty) as a General Candidate, the Division Bench of Jasmeet Singh* and Vikas Mahajan, JJ., opined that petitioner belonged to EWS category on the closing date for making an application i.e. 24-09-2022 but did not possess a valid EWS certificate as the same was issued on 30-12-2022. Hence, it could not be said that petitioner was not a bonafide candidate. The Court set aside the order dated 12-06-2023 and directed that petitioner was to be considered for Stage-II examination.
Background
Respondents issued a Notification for recruitment to the post of Navik (D), Navik (Domestic Branch) and Yantrik in the Indian Coast Guard by inviting applications from 08-09-2022 to 22-09-2022. Petitioner applied for the same as EWS candidate and appeared for Coast Guard Navik (DB)-01/2023 Stage-I examination. Petitioner cleared Stage-I examination and was called upon for Stage-II examination on 12-01-2023. At Stage-II examination, petitioner was required to upload all relevant documents including EWS certificate. EWS certificate uploaded by petitioner was dated 03-02-2022 for 2021-2022 and another dated 30-12-2022 for 2022-2023. Petitioner’s candidature was rejected as he failed in the document verification process.
Petitioner submitted that he was a meritorious candidate and had cleared written examination of Stage-I with merit and scored 95 marks which was over and above the cut off marks prescribed for General Category. Hence, without prejudice to the rights of petitioner, he should have been considered under EWS category but considering the fact that petitioner secured more than minimum required marks for general category, he could have very well been considered in the General category and permitted to participate in selection process. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC submitted that EWS certificate uploaded by petitioner was dated 03-02-2022 for 2021-2022 and another certificate dated 30-12-2022 for 2022-2023 and petitioner’s candidature was rejected as his date of issue of EWS certificate for 2022-2023 was after the closing date of application i.e., 24-09-2022. It was also submitted that petitioner could have been considered as a general candidate only if he was a bonafide candidate, but petitioner was not a bonafide candidate as his uploaded documents were found to be wanting. Hence, the order dated 12-06-2023 needed no interference and the review petition should be dismissed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration was “whether on account of the non-possession of EWS certificate on 24-09-2022, the petitioner would be outside the scope and purview of a “bonafide candidate”?”.
The Court noted that the only deficiency was that on the last date for applying, i.e., 24-09-2022, petitioner did not have a valid, subsisting EWS certificate for 2022-2023. The Court also noted that petitioner was EWS candidate by virtue of certificate dated 03-02-2022 for 2021-2022 and he also had EWS certificate dated 30-12-2022 for 2022-2023.
The Court observed that Clause 7 of the Office Memorandum clearly showed that in case petitioner was not considered as EWS candidate, petitioner would have the right to compete for an appointment against unreserved category. The Court also observed that petitioner’s EWS certificate for 2022-2023 clearly showed that petitioner did not cross the criteria of “either annual income of his/her family being above Rs. 8 lakhs or possessing 5 acres of agricultural land and above; or possessing residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above; or possessing residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above in notified municipalities; or possessing residential plot of 200 sq. yards and above in areas other than the notified municipalities”.
The Court stated that the certificate only recognized that petitioner belonged to EWS category in 2022-2023 as the certificate was based on the incomes/assets of the previous Financial Year i.e., 2021-2022. The Court thus opined that petitioner belonged to EWS category on the closing date for making an application i.e., 24-09-2022 but did not possess a valid EWS certificate as the same was issued on 30-12-2022. Hence, it could not be said that petitioner was not a bonafide candidate. The certificate dated 30-12-2022 was only the certification/recognition, of the fact that in 2022-2023, petitioner belonged to EWS category.
The Court opined that petitioner was a meritorious candidate and had 95 marks whereas minimum qualifying marks for General category was 84. The purpose of the examination was to screen out and take the best candidates available for the job. Since petitioner obtained more than minimum qualifying marks, petitioner should have been considered for Stage-II under the General category as petitioner’s rejection was not based on his merit but only on account of document verification.
The Court noted that all EWS candidates who scored more than 84 marks were considered in the general category hence, there was no reason taking a contrary view vis-a-vis petitioner. The Court thus allowed the review petition, set aside the order dated 12-06-2023 and directed that petitioner was to be considered for Stage-II examination.
[Chand Suraj v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7533, decided on 29-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abhinay Sharma, LK Srivastava, PC Roy, Parul Khurana, Deeksha Prakash, Advocates
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar, CGSC
