AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 2040 oflflfi? PETITIONER Ku. Deepti Pardhi ^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Post for order on .".:.12.2007 Sd/- Satish K. Judge /'.-. 12.2007 Y-- ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BH.ASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2040 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ku. Deepti Pardhi, D/o Shri Hemraj Pardhi, Village Sihava, Tehsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Collector, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. C.G. Public Service Commission, through Secretary, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BMDLA Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Petitiorier in person. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 3. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for respondent N0. 4. ORDER (Passed on ..IJ.^day of December, 2007) ^/ 1. The petitioner challenges the non-grant of Other Backward Class Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.B.C. Certificate') on the basis of her provisional caste certificate and non-selection of the petitioner in Civil Services Main Examination, 2005, on the ground that she was treated as general candidate. The petitioner seeks following reliefs: 7.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 to produce the entire record to pertaming to the issuance of caste certificate to the petitioners & also direct the respondent No. 4 to produce entire record of his examination before Hon'ble Court for his kind pemsal. 7.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ ofcertiorari and quash the impugned order ofAnnexure P-10 dated 23.03.2007, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer .•.l:~-.,s.-;ISi^.i- ^-- '^•' (Revenue) Nagari, Distt. Dhamtari & hold that the petitioner is entitled for permanent caste certificate ofOBC. 7.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 by issuing writ ofmandamus to provide a permanent Caste Certificate ofOBC to petitioners. 7.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order ofAnnexure P-7, dated 01.02.07 passed by Respondent No. 4 & direct him to consider the Case of petitioner as a Candidate ofOBC & declare her result. 7.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to compensate the petitioner suitably for the loss & mental agony which she suffered due to the acts of respondents. 7.6 That, any other reliefwhich this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also be granted to the petitioner. In respect of relief clause No. 7.2 and 7.3, Shri Arvind Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents 1 to 3, would submit that in view of the order No. F 9-1/2001/1/3 dated 27th June, 2007, the petitioner is entitled to O.B.C. certificate. Leamed counsel further submits that the petitioner, on making an application for grant of caste certificate as O.B.C., shall be granted the said certificate in accordance with order dated 27 June, 2007. In view of the categorical statement made by leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents 1, 2 and 3, reliefclause No. 7.2 and 7.3 stand satisfied. The petitioner has no further grievance. A Division Bench ofthis Court in W.P.(C) No. 5314 of 2007 (Ku. Bharti Banpuriya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) disposed of identical petition observing as under: "Leamed Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State informs that thejudgment ofthe learned Single Judge was wrongly interpreted and in compliance ofthe judgment in Writ Petition No. ^.g'aaaa.R,. .^?*^fe '"\ fy^ ^' '% 'a % f ''*s»wi^ ^ 2510/2004 dated 04.02.2005, the Govemment by an order dated 02.02.2006 had kept its notification dated 06.07.2004 in abeyance. Thereafter, the Govemment has issued another order dated 27.06.2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defmed and explained which includes (i) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) all the employees of State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by President of India, their spouses or children; (iv) Corporations, Agencies, Commissions, Board's, Officials/OfFicers/employees, their spouses or children. This Govemment order is to benefit the petitioners-students with respect to bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh. We are of the considered opinion that once such persons have been recognized as residents of Chhattisgarh, then the same analogy shall apply for the purpose of the admissions of children of the categories referred to hereinabove are concemed, if their caste is included in the Presidential Order." 4. Admittedly, the caste of the petitioner "Pawar" is in the O.B.C. list of State ofChhattisgarh at serial No. 13 and in the central list at serial No. 229. 5. With regard to prayer No. 7.4 and 7.5, Ku. Deepti Pardhi, petitioner in person would submit that treating the petitioner as general category candidate is bad in law, though the petitioner could not produce caste certificate to that effect. However, keeping in view the provisional caste certificate, the petitioner ought to have been treated as O.B.C. candidate and the result should have been declared accordingly. Miss Pardhi, further submits that for denial of selection ofthe petitioner, she has suffered mental agony and loss. Thus, she is entitled to appropriate compensation also. 6. Shri Abhishek Sinha, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, CKhattisgarh Public Seryice Commission, would submit that in accordance w t'" \,/ IS with clause 9(3) of the advertisement dated 24.05.2006, the petitioner was required to submit a valid caste certificate issued by the competent authority. This condition was specifically prescribed in the prospectus issued alongwith the fomi. The supply of caste certificate issued by the competent authority was mandatory. Admittedly, the petitioner had failed to submit a valid caste certificate and as such, she was treated as unreserved category candidate. In absence of legal valid proof, she could not have been treated a candidate in reserved quota for O.B.C. Mr. Sinha would further submit that the marks obtained by the petitioner was much less and as such, she was declared unsuccessful. The selection process has been complete. The results thereof have been declared and the recommendation for appointment have also been made accordingly. The case of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. However, the petitioner, after obtaining valid caste certificate can apply in future as reserved candidate (OBC). Shri Sinha, learned counsel would last submit that the petitioner had suffered not on account of any misconduct or non-action on the part of the respondents. The petitioner herself had failed to submit a valid caste certificate. Thus, there is no question for any compensation. The petitioner can not be granted compensation for her own fault. I have heard the petitioner in person and the leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. I am of the considered opinion that in the facts of the case wherein it is evident that the petitioner had admittedly failed to produce valid caste certificate, the respondent No. 4 cannot be faulted with for treating her as general candidate. The petitioner had not challenged non-grant of caste certificate earlier. The petitioner had chosen to challenge the same after the examination was over, ~^? recommendations have been made for appointment on the basis of merit list prepared by the respondent No. 4. 10. In the case ofUnion of India & Others Vs. S.Vinodh Kumar & Others , the Supreme Court observed inter-alia, as under: "It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil & See also Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission)." Amit •;-.^ \ 11. In view of foregoing, there is no merit in the case, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK. Judge r' l.(2007)8SCC 100