Citation: L.P.A No.1414 of 2018
Coram: Honourable Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Decided On: 03-10-2023
Introduction:
The present appeal is filed against an order in a review, which rejected the same finding the scope of review to be very limited and the invocation of such review jurisdiction possible only on the ground of an error apparent/evident from the face of the record.
Facts:
On 02.04.2018, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the rejection of her candidature to the post to Lady Supervisor, which was dismissed. The rejection of her candidature was on account of her not having produced the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, which she was obliged to produce along with application.
The learned Single Judge found that though it was not produced along with application, she was called for counselling on 14.05.2012, on which date also she had not produced it. The petitioner’s reliance on the guidelines, which speak of an opportunity to submit the required certificate, having not been granted to her was also rejected on the ground that the advertisement clearly spelt out the requirement to produce the certificates along with application.
The advertisement was made for appointment on contractual basis to the post of Lady Supervisor (Mahila Parveyashika) in Katihar district. Even according to the petitioner, the advertisement required that the application should contain the self-attested photograph, the Extremely Backward Class certificate along with the certificate of not coming under creamy layer. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the certificate along with the application. In the writ petition also the petitioner had a contention that if her application was defective, she should have been informed.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
Petitioner’s candidature was not rejected at its inception and despite her failure to produce the certificate, she was called for the counselling. This was sufficient compliance of the guidelines. The advertisement clearly required the applicants to produce the certificates and the self-attested photograph long with the application itself. If any of the enclosures required are not produced, the application could be rejected in limine, which was not done.
It also have to be noticed that the certificate was issued only on 14.05.2012, on which date the counselling was also carried out. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that the certificate was produced at the time of counselling also cannot be believed. Hence the appeal was dismissed by the court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma
