SBCWP No.4833/06. SBCWP No.8829/06. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4833/2006. Yaspal Singh Yadav Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology Udaipur & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8829/2006. Dr.Satya Pal Bishnoi Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology Udaipur & Ors. Date of Order:- February 25, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri P.S. Sharma and Shri R.N. Mathur for the petitioners. Shri Pyarelal for respondents No.1 to 4. ****** BY THE COURT:- Both these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 with a prayer that respondents be directed to consider case of the petitioners for appointment against the posts of Assistant SBCWP No.4833/06. SBCWP No.8829/06. 2 Professors in Nematology which was reserved for the candidate of OBC. Learned counsel submitted that subsequently on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Ravishankar M. Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology Udaipur (SBCWP No.6949/06) decided on 11/7/2008, the respondent-University cancelled the appointment granted to respondent No.5 Ravi Shanker M. considering him a member of OBC on the premise that he being not a member of the OBC in the State of Rajasthan was not entitled to appointment. It was argued that the respondent-University in the aforesaid writ petition took a stand that respondent No.5 Ravi Shanker M. produced the OBC Certificate from the State of Tamilnadu which was not admissible for considering his candidature in OBC for recruitment in the State of Rajasthan and for want of OBC Certificate being issued by the competent authorities of the State of Rajasthan, his appointment has rightly been terminated. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the stand of the respondents before Principal Seat of this Court in SBCWP No.6949/06, their decision to treat respondent No.5 as OBC has been acknowledged as incorrect by the respondents themselves and consequently, the only available OBC candidate i.e. the petitioners SBCWP No.4833/06. SBCWP No.8829/06. 3 would be entitled to appointment. 2) Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 opposed the writ petition and submitted that since at that time, respondent No.5 was considered to be more meritorious, petitioners could not be appointed. Even if appointment of respondent No.5 has been cancelled, case of the petitioners could not be considered because term of reservation of one year has expired long back. Learned counsel therefore submitted that writ petitions be dismissed. 3) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned order. 4) A bare perusal of the judgment of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Ravishankar M. Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology Udaipur (SBCWP No.6949/06) decided on 11/7/2008 reveals that respondents were justified in their action requiring respondent No.5 to produce the OBC Certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Rajasthan. It was observed by the Principal Seat, as under:- “Per contra, counsel for the University first of all submitted that at the time of issuing SBCWP No.4833/06. SBCWP No.8829/06. 4 appointment order it was made clear that this appointment is subject to veritifation of antecedents and physical fitness, therefore, at the time of screening the documents when it comes to the knowledge of University that petitioner has filed OBC Certificate obtained from Tamil Nadu for appointment to the post under the government of India, which is not admissible for the purpose of considering his candidature on OBC Category for recruitment in the University in the State of Rajasthan, therefore, he has rightly been asked to submit the OBC Certificate of State of Rajasthan. Further it is submitted that respondent University is instrumentality of State and autonomous body created under the Statute framed by the State Legislature, therefore,policies and rules existing in State are required to followed and as per Rules and Regulations eligibility under reserved category is to be adjudged on the basis of certificate issued by State of Rajasthn as per list of reserved categories notified by Government of Rajasthan for treating a particular caste in the OBC, therefore petitioner is under obligation to produce a valid certificate of OBC Category issued by the State of Rajasthan. Admittedly, certificate produced by the petitioner is issued by the authorities of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of recruitment to the post under the Government of India, which is evident from Annex.R/2 and the present recruitment has b3enmade by the respondent University, therefore, all the candidates claiming SBCWP No.4833/06. SBCWP No.8829/06. 5 reservation against Sc, ST or OBC are required to submit proper certificate issued by the State of Rajasthan in that regard. Further it is submitted that upon perusal of the OBC list issued by the Government of Rajasthan, the caste 'Kongu Velialar' to which petitioner belongs is not included in the said list, therefore, benefit of reservation under OBC category cannot be granted to petitioner and he was wrongly considered for appointment under the OBC Category, therefore, he is not entitled to seek interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. 5) Now when respondent No.5 has already been removed from service and as per own admission of the respondents, their action for appointing him in preference to the OBC candidate of the State of Rajasthan has been held to be illegal, it must be held that petitioners have a prima-facie claim in their favour for getting appointment against the OBC Category. The mere fact that petitioners were not liable to be appointed after the expiry of the term of reserve list of one year, would not be an impediment for this Court in entertaining the writ petitions because appointment was granted to respondent No.5 pursuant to the select list dated 12/6/2006 and the petitioners filed these writ SBCWP No.4833/06. SBCWP No.8829/06. 6 petitions soon thereafter and before the expiry of the reserve list. 6) In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners against the OBC Category for the post of Assistant Professors in Nematology which were reserved for the candidate of OBC and if they are found suitable as per merit, grant them appointment with effect from the date appointment was granted to respondent No.5. However, petitioners shall be entitled for the notional benefits for the intervening period. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of two months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil