Backward class certificate validity

jobankaur (Querist) 30 July 2021 This query is : Resolved
Sir, I applied for the permanent post of assistant professor under bc category in gndu. I got interview letter. But I was not allowed to appear for an interview bcoz my bc certificate was the old year 2015 which I was not aware that it is renewed every year. I requested authorities to allow me for an interview for which I wrote an application and attached my husband's income tax return but even then I was not allowed. I want to ask u that I got an interview letter which was sent to me after my Xerox certificates were scrutinized by the authorities..why didn't they noticed then? Why they sent me an interview letter then? I was harassed a lot on interview day ...can I do anything?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

A candidate was denied an interview for an assistant professor post because their Backward Class (BC) certificate was from 2015, not realising it needed annual renewal. Despite providing supporting documents, they were rejected. However, legal precedents and recent guidelines suggest that a BC certificate's validity period for applications can be flexible, especially if the candidate is genuinely from the category. The authorities' decision to reject the candidature at the interview stage may have been incorrect, and the candidate is advised to explore legal avenues for a remedy.

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 30 July 2021
Yes. They might have been mistaken. But once observed their mistake, then their rejection is correct.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 31 July 2021
You should put this question to concerned department/ institution as to why it was their oversight before issuance of interview letter.

P. Venu (Expert) 31 July 2021
The stand of the authority is not correct. Extant norms allow the certificate to be produced even subsequent to the prescribed time limit. In this context, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had held in the case of Union of India v. Abdul Rasheed

“9. It is not in dispute before us that the respondent is a person belonging to OBC. The fact that he was entitled to reservation is also not in dispute. The only question to be decided is whether his candidature under the reserved category could have been rejected on the ground that he did not produce the OBC non-creamy layer certificate in the prescribed format which was issued within 180 days of the date of closure of the application.

10. The land mark judgment of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [(1992) Supp.3 SCC 217] has explained the concept of reservation in its historical background and has laid down the principles for implementation. In Tej Pal Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court held that candidates belonging to SC and ST categories who submitted the community certificates belatedly were also eligible to be considered for appointment under the reserved category. In Pushpa v.
Government NCT of Delhi & ors. [2009(2) Laws (Delhi) 278], with regard to the late submission of community certificate of an OBC candidate, the Apex Court held that a person belongs to OBC category by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by a competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of
the fact which is already in existence. In Ram Kumar Gijroya's case [(2016) 4 SCC 754](supra) the Apex Court considered the question of law as to whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the OBC category or not. Deciding a batch of civil appeals, it
was held that the judgment of the Division Bench setting aside the judgment and order dated 4/11/2010 wherein the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to accept the OBC certificates produced belatedly was erroneous and the same was set aside. The direction to consider the appellant for selection in the reserved category was thus upheld. In the facts of this case as well, we are of the view that the certificate produced by the first respondent at the time of interview should have been accepted and acted upon by the appellants.”

The above decision has attained finality with the dismissal of the SLP therefrom. Accordingly, the Staff Selection, in consultation with the DoPT, has issued the guidelines dated 17/08/2017:

"Candidates may refer to the provisions in the Commission’s earlier Notices of various Examinations, which inter-alia prescribed that the OBC Certificate in the prescribed format issued within Three years, before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the closing date of applications would be accepted by the Commission.

2. It has been observed by the Commission that the candidates were facing difficulties in producing the OBC Certificates in the prescribed format within the cut off date specified in the Notices. Some of the candidates had also challenged the above provisions in various Courts.

3. Keeping in view the difficulties faced by the candidates and the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 3116/2017 in the matter of Union of India vs Abdul Rasheed, the Commission took up the matter regarding relaxation in the stipulated time limit (as indicated at para 1 above) with the Department of Personnel & Training. The Department of Personnel & Training in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs, endorsed the following decisions of the Commission as given below:-

(i) With effect from 23/01/2017, [i.e the date of dismissal of SLP No. 3116/2017 filed by the Commission in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (UOI vs Abdul Rasheed)] the Commission will not insist on candidates producing OBC Certificates issued within the cut off dates i.e. 3 years, before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the closing date of applications mentioned in the Notices.

(ii) In cases where document verification has already been completed and the final result was declared after 23/01/2017 or is yet to be declared, the candidates may furnish prima facie proof of being OBC, if already not produced, to enable the Commission to consider/process their claim under the OBC category.

(iii) The candidature of OBC candidates will remain provisional; subject to verification of his/her claim by the User Department concerned as Appointing Authority, as per the extant Government provisions/guidelines on the subject.

(iv) It is categorically stated that the Commission shall not reopen cases where the final result has already been declared before 23/01/2017"

As such, in my considered view, you have been unjustly disallowed. You may move the Administrative Tribunal/High Court and seek immediate remedy.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 25 August 2021
I endorse the views of learned expert Shri P Venu in this regard, especially the citation provided herein above is a very apt one and clearly indicates that you are eligible for the interview and the rejection of your candidature at the interview level is without application of mind by the scrutinizing authority.
You can initiate appropriate legal steps to ensure that you get justice in this regard especially if you are otherwise eligible for this post in all other aspects.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries