No Lenient View in Cases of Violation of Mandatory Instructions, Even in Cases Regarding OBC: Himachal Pradesh HC

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Excerpt

The Complainant filed a Writ Petition for Mandamus as he was disqualified for not having the documents needed to apply for a job of Himachal Pradesh Police Constable. The Petitioner was not allowed to give an exam meant to test his eligibility for the said job.

The Petitioner demanded that the concerned authority allow him to take the test from which he was barred from.

Brief Facts

The Government of Himachal Pradesh put out an advertisement in 2019 inviting candidates for numerous posts of Police Constables. The advertisement mentioned all the requirements for eligibility to apply for the post. This included Himachali bonafide and Reserve Category certificates that should be valid on the date of submission of Application Form.

The Petitioner is from OBC and applied for the post reserved for the said category. However, the OBC certificate of the candidate was issued on 28.09.2017 and was valid for one year from the date it was issued. The certificate of the Petitioner had already expired on the date he applied for the post. Further, the Petitioner gave the preliminary tests and qualified the physical standard and written test held by the Respondents on 8.9.2019. Thereafter, he was called for a personality test scheduled for 5.11.2019. Meanwhile, the Petitioner obtained a fresh OBC certificate dated 29.6.2019 and procured it before his test and produced it before the Court.

The Petitioner was barred from sitting in the exam because his OBC certificate was expired even before the date he applied for the post. Subsequently, the Petitioner reached the Court and prayed to be considered as an eligible candidate. Also, the Petitioner has asked for re-examination for the Personality-cum-Suitability test.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the certificate dated 29.6.2019, which was valid on that day and was effective till 28.6.2020 was produced to the Court on the day of the test. Thus, his disqualification is not valid.

Respondent’s Arguments

Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that it was mandatory to provide a valid certificate during the time of registration but the Petitioner submitted an invalid certificated that was expired. Thus, he has not maintained the requirements for eligibility.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that indeed that candidate failed to fulfil the requirements for applying for the said post. Also, the authorities can not work on their discretion based on their wishes and have to abide by the conditions.

However, the Court mentioned several precedents dealing with similar matters. The Court quoted the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board. The case held that the certificates provided by an OBC can be considered even after the cut- of date. But, the Court found the situation of the cases to be very different from each other and thus, the precedent was not applied to this case.

The Court quoted the same case of Karn Singh Yadav Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi that was referred to a larger Bench than before. The Bench held that:

”No lenient view in cases of violation of mandatory instructions cannot be taken as it can be treated as precedent by various other candidates, who might have also been disqualified for the same reason.”

The Bench mentioned a precedent holding a synonymous opinion as to the earlier Bench.

Court’s Judgement

Based on the aforementioned grounds, the Court found no merit in the Petitioner’s petition and dismissed it. Thereby, the Court held the decision of the Government to reject the Petitioner’s application valid.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -