High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4189/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Judgment and Order [ ORAL }
Legal Reasoning
The matter pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Mani pur in the college called Janata College, Kabuganj, Cachar for which an advertis ement was issued and published in the newspaper on 07.06.2009. The post was rese rved for OBC/MOBC candidates. Responding to the employment notice, candidates in cluding the petitioner and the respondent No.6 offered candidatures. Thereafter, the Selection Committee constituted by the Governing Body of the College conduc ted the selection in which the respondent No.6 was recommended as the first nomi nee and the petitioner as the second nominee. The recommendation made by the Sel ection Committed was accepted by the Governing Body of the College and as per th e requirement of the Rules, approval of the Director Higher Education towards fo rmal appointment of the respondent No.6 was sought for. However, no approval has been granted in view of the pendency of this proceeding.
Decision
The grounds on which the writ petition has been filed challenging the se 2. lection of the respondent No.6 are as follows: i) The respondent No. 6 having failed to submit his OBC Certificate on or before the specified date, his Certificate submitted later on, ought not to have been accepted and consequently, he was not entitled to get invitation for the selecti on. Even if the OBC Certificate that was produced by the respondent No. 6, is ac cepted then also the said Certificate could not have been accepted as an OBC Cer tificate, as the same was issued by the Authority in the State of Manipur and no t the State of Assam. ii) Even in the Certificate, the respondent No.6 having been certified to be a ’ Meitei’ and not ’Manipuri’ and the requirement being the Manipuri OBC, the same could not have been accepted as real OBC Certificate of the respondent No.6. iii) Although in the writ petition and during the course of hearing, some additi onal grounds were urged such as lack of teaching experience, providing lower mar ks to the petitioner under the head of ’experience’ etc., but Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. R. Tahabilder, learned counsel for th e petitioner in his usual fairness submitted that the basic grounds of challenge is confined to the issue relating to the OBC status of the respondent No.6. Acc ording to him, the respondent No.6 being not a candidate belonging to OBC/MOBC c ategory of the State of Assam, his candidature could not have been accepted by t he College Authority. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, both official and the private, the aforesaid pleas of the petitioner have been denied. It has been st ated that the respondent No.6 had duly submitted his OBC Certificate before the last date of receipt of applications and even otherwise also there being no disp ute that he belongs to OBC, being Manipuri, there was no impediment towards acce ptance of the said status, which he is holding since his birth. As regards recog nition of Manipuri OBC candidate in the State of Assam, referring to the list of OBC and MOBC classes in the state of Assam, it has been contended that since th e said list includes Manipuri along with Manipuri Brahmins and Manipuri Muslims, merely because the respondent No.6 hails from the State of Manipur, he cannot b e deprived of participation in the selection process. As regards the experience etc. as a Lecturer, it has been contended that the experience gathered by both t he candidates were duly taken note of and that is why the petitioner was awarded 5 out of 5 marks and the respondent No.6 was awarded 4 out of 5 marks. This asp ect of the matter need not detain us, as the petitioner has primarily confined h is case in respect of the issue raised regarding the OBC status of the responden t No.6. 4. Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his elaborate a rgument while vehemently submitting that the candidature of the respondent No.6 ought not to have been accepted as he is not an OBC category candidate belonging to the State of Assam, has also referred to certain decisions which are (1) (AI R 2010 Guwahati 87) Naorem Deepak Singh versus State of Manipur & Ors; (2) 2007 4 SCC 54 Ashok Kumar Sonthor versus Union of India and others (3) (2012) 12 Supr eme Court Cases 133 V. Chandrasekaran and another versus Administrative Officer and Others; (4) (2003) 7 SCC 657 U. P. Public Services Commission, Allahabad ver sus Sanjay Kumar Singh; (5) AIR 2001 SC 2749 M.C.D. versus Ceena and others. Countering the arguments advanced by Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned counsel f 5. or the petitioner, Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel representing the respondent College has submitted that in the educational institutions the requirement bein g that of lecturer in Manipuri language and both the petitioner and the responde nt No.6 being qualified in Manipuri language and also belonging to Manipuri comm unity, were considered in the selection and the Selection Committee having recom mended the respondent No.6 in preference to the petitioner, the issue relating t o OBC status of the respondent No.6 as prayed by the petitioner is uncalled for and totally misplaced. He also submits that the list of OBC in the State of Assa m having included Manipuri along with Manipuri Brahmin and Manipuri Muslims, no distinction can be made between the Manipuris, who are ordinary resident of the State of Assam and those hailing from the State of Manipur also in the category of OBC. Referring to some other entries in the list such as Rajbongshi or Koch r eferable to Koch of Goalpara and Garo Hills only, he has submitted that had thei r been any intention to exclude the Manipuris of the State of Manipur, there wou ld have been clear mention of the same in the aforesaid list. 6. Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the selected candidate i. e. the respondent No.6, defending his selection submits that when an expert body like Selection Committee has found the respondent No.6 to be the most suitable candidate, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not seat on appeal over the opinion of such Expert Body. As regards the OBC status of the respondent No. 6, relating to the Annexure-A (OBC Certificate) dated 23.11. 2004. He also submi ts that the said Certificate being prior in point of time than the last date of submission of application, it cannot be argued that the respondent No. 6 had sub mitted the Certificate after the last date of submission of applications. He fur ther submits that when the Certificate was misplaced by the College staff the re spondent No.6 had provided another copy of the Certificate. He also argued that the status of the respondent No.6 as a Manipuri (OBC) which he had earned by vir tue of his birth in the particular community cannot be taken away on the technic alities. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner tha t even the Certificate does not refer the respondent No.6 as Manipuri, but refer s as ’Meitei’. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has submit ted that it is the common knowledge of all that all ’Meiteis’ are Manipuri and t hat merely because the respondent No.6 has been referred to as belonging to ’Mei tei’ community in the State of Manipur, it cannot be said that the respondent No .6 is not a Manipuri. 7. The first two cases referred to above have been relied upon to put empha size on the requirement of producing the relevant documents at the time of filin g of application. As noted above, it is the case of the petitioner that the resp ondent No.6 did not submit his OBC Certificate on or before the last date of sub mission of application, but had submitted at a later point of time. This has bee n disputed by the respondent, specifically stating that the Certificate was prod uced by the respondent No.6 within the stipulated period of time and when the sa me was misplaced, he had submitted another copy of the same. 8. The respondent No.6 belongs to OBC category, more particularly when the Certificate certifying him of belonging to ’Meitei’ community (OBC) in the State of Manipur, is not in dispute. The fact that the respondent No.4 belongs to ’Me itei’ community in the State of Manipur, which is recognized as OBC being not in dispute and the Certificate dated 23.11.2004 (Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-o pposition filed by the respondent No.6), which is prior in point of time than th e last date of submission of application. It is specifically stated by the Colle ge Authority that the cast Certificate was produced by the respondent No.6 is no t in dispute, merely on raising an issue. I am not inclined to accept the said p lea. On perusal of the records, there is nothing discernable so as to indicate t hat the Certificate was produced at the later point of time. 9. Above now leads us to the main issue as to whether the particular status of the respondent No.6 will get reorganization in the State of Assam or not. Wh ile it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 even if belongs to OBC category, the said status being within the State of Manipur, he cannot carr y the said status to another State (in this case, State of Assam) so as to claim selection and appointment to the post in question. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents as noted above is that since the same is recognized as Manip uri including the Manipuri Brahmin and Manipuri Muslim, it will certainly includ e candidates like that of the respondent No.6. Another point argued by them is t hat since the post in question is that of Lecturer in Manipuri, it is in the in terest of the college, which is to be born in mind, instead of giving any narrow interpretation to the particular status of the respondent No.6. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6, although, he has stated about relevant fact but has not dealt with the aforesaid plea of the peti tioner. As noted above, the approval of the Director of Higher Education is yet to be accorded in view of the pendency of the final proceeding. 11. The third decision on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has p laced reliance pertains to reservation upon migration of the person to another S tate. It was held that if the person migrated to other State, does not fall in t he reserved category of the later State, he may not be entitled to reservation. Similar views have been expressed in the fourth and fifth decisions. However, in the instant case the moot question for determination is as to whether in the in clusive definition of Manipuri in the list of Other Backward Classes pertaining to the State of Assam, the Manipuris of the State of Manipur are also included o r not. While according to the petitioner it will not but according to the respon dents it will include the respondent No.6 as well, more particularly, when the p ost in question is that of lecturer in Manipuri. 12. Since the matter is now pending with the Director of Higher Education, A ssam the issue is left open to be decided by him taking note of all the facts an d circumstances and also in accordance with law. Subject to the outcome of resol ution of the issue in the above manner, the approval or otherwise of the selecti on of the respondent No.6 as lecturer in Manipuri would depend. The require exer cise be carried out by the Director of Higher Education as expeditiously as poss ible, but at any rate not later than 15th January, 2013. Whatever may be the out come of the consideration of the case in terms of this judgment and order, the r esults thereof shall be communicated to the parties concerned.