IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 297 of 2007 (S/B) Smt. Ranjana Kumari ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another ………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Date of Judgment: 29.08.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) On 28th August, 2002, an advertisement was published by Uttarakhand State Public Service Commission, inviting applications for participating in preliminary examination to be conducted for supplying the advertised vacancies. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that the candidates, who would be invited to sit in the main examination, would be required to furnish documents to support their eligibility, as prescribed in the advertisement, for the posts to be opted by them. One of the posts advertised was the post of District Information Officer. The advertisement said that in respect of the said post, apart from being a graduate, the person concerned must have some more qualification. One of those was a diploma in journalism. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement and, accordingly, was invited to appear in the preliminary examination, which was held in the month of January, 2003. Petitioner succeeded in the preliminary examination and, accordingly, was called upon to exercise her option for the post and also to furnish documents to suggest that she has eligibility for the post opted for. The date when the petitioner was asked to do so as well as the date when the petitioner discharged the said obligation, was not averred in the writ petition. Petitioner, however, had stated in the last sentence of paragraph 4 of her rejoinder affidavit that she opted for the post of District Information Officer on 24th May, 2005, when she appeared for interview. That is contrary to the terms of the advertisement. Petitioner was, therefore, required to establish the same. She failed to do so. 2 2. The letter of the Commission dated 8th July, 2005, relied by the petitioner in the petition, makes it clear that she had been provisionally selected for the post of District Information Officer. It was also indicated that in course of interview, held on 24th May, 2005, she was given 15 days’ time, until 9th June, 2005, to submit the caste certificate and diploma in journalism, but she did not do so and, accordingly, she is being given last opportunity to do so by submitting the same on or before 29th July, 2005. 3. According to the petitioner, she obtained her mark-sheet pertaining to her diploma in journalism on 11th August, 2003. Therefore, before 11th August, 2003, petitioner was not in the know whether she has obtained the diploma in journalism. In the absence of evidence suggesting the date of submission of her option to opt for the post of District Information Officer, it is not known whether at the time of submitting such option, in terms of the directions contained in the advertisement, she, in fact, submitted any evidence suggesting that she has obtained a diploma in journalism. 4. Be that as it may, petitioner passed in the written examination and thereafter, was interviewed on 24th May, 2005. The result of the selection was published on 10th June, 2005, when it was shown that the petitioner has been selected as a Scheduled Caste candidate for the post of District Information Officer. As aforesaid, on 8th July, 2005, petitioner was given until 29th July, 2005 to submit her diploma in journalism and her caste certificate. She must have submitted the same on or before 29th July, 2005, whereupon, by the decision impugned in the writ petition, selection of the petitioner for the post of District Information Officer was cancelled, on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner did not have, in her possession, any document, suggesting that she obtained post graduate diploma in journalism at the time she exercised her option for being appointed to the post of District Information Officer and, accordingly, could not comply with the requirements of the advertisement. She was, therefore, not eligible for being selected for the post of District Information Officer. 3 5. In this connection, it should be noted that petitioner has relied upon a document, furnishing special instructions pertaining to the examination in question, where it had been specifically provided that the person applying must have the minimum qualification for the posts mentioned in the advertisement on or before 16th September, 2002, i.e., the last date of responding to the advertisement dated 25th August, 2000. In such view of the matter, since there cannot be any dispute that on or before 16th September, 2000, petitioner was not aware of whether she has passed the examination for obtaining diploma in journalism, she could not opt for the post of District Information Officer at all. 6. In the event, while appearing in the written examination or interview, petitioner had opted for the post of District Information Officer, she could only do so, provided she had a diploma in journalism, obtained on or before 16th September, 2002. She did not have the same and, accordingly, the contention of the Commission that she was ineligible for being selected to the post of District Information Officer, cannot be interfered with. 7. Petitioner produced a caste certificate, showing that she is wife of a gentleman residing at Dehradun, and that, she belongs to Valmiki caste, which is a Scheduled Caste of the State. There is no dispute that the petitioner is daughter of a person who belongs to Valmiki caste. Accordingly, there is also no dispute that the petitioner belongs to Valmiki caste. The father of the petitioner is, however, a resident of the State of Punjab. In such view of the matter, petitioner is also a Scheduled Caste of the State of Punjab. Petitioner has migrated to the State of Uttarakhand after having had married a resident of this State. 8 It is being contended that since she is thus married and, accordingly, is permanently residing in this State and since Valmiki caste is also a Scheduled Caste for the State of Uttarakhand, she should be regarded as a Scheduled Caste of this State. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in the case of Jyoti Bala vs. State of 4 Uttarakhand and another, reported in 2009 (1) U.D., 1, for the proposition that the petitioner is entitled to a caste certificate, showing that she belongs to Scheduled Caste of this State. The judgment, referred to above, deals with domicile certificate and addresses the issue, principally, on Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, proceeding on the basis that the said sections apply to Hindus. The fact remains that in terms of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the said sections do not apply to Hindus. 10. Be that as it may, the said judgment had and has no bearing in the matter of grant of a Scheduled Caste certificate. The right of a Scheduled Caste is created on the date he or she is born. Since that right is affixed with the birth of the person, the same is affixed with the State in which such right has accrued. Petitioner, therefore, as a member of Scheduled Caste community, acquired rights applicable to members of the Scheduled Caste community of the State of Punjab on and simultaneously with her birth in Punjab. The moment she migrated to the State of Uttarakhand, whether on being married or otherwise, she did not bring with her the right that she acquired in the State of Punjab. So far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, she never acquired any such right. 11. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference with the decision of the respondent – commission in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the post of District Information Officer, on the ground that she did not have the eligibility for the said post, as well as on the ground that she is not such a Scheduled Caste who is entitled to the benefits available to the Scheduled Castes of the State of Uttarakhand. 12. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.08.2011 29.08.2011 Amit