E-Paper
Bombay HC upholds govt’s decision to stop provisional appointments on reserved posts
A bench of justice RK Deshpande and justice AS Chandurkar rejected a petition filed by Nagpur resident Chitra Sonarghare challenging a clause in the advertisement published by Gadchiroli Zilla Parishad for the recruitment of backward category candidates on various posts.
Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with the Maharashtra government’s decision to stop making provisional appointments on posts reserved for backward category candidates and confirming the appointments on the production of caste validity certificate.
A bench of justice RK Deshpande and justice AS Chandurkar rejected a petition filed by Nagpur resident Chitra Sonarghare challenging a clause in the advertisement published by Gadchiroli Zilla Parishad for the recruitment of backward category candidates on various posts.
The clause required candidates to submit their caste validity certificates along with their applications.
It was argued on behalf of Sonarghare that she had the right of being considered for the post without the production of caste validity certificate, especially because section 6(3) of the Maharashtra SC, ST, DT, NT, OBC and SBC (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
It requires employers to forward caste certificate of their employees to the scrutiny committee for verification and issuance of validity certificate.
The bench, however, rejected the argument.
It said if ineligible persons are allowed to gain access to scarce public resources, rights of those eligible are violated and the illegality is perpetrated in bestowing benefits upon undeserving imposters.
The bench said nobody had any right of being considered for selection and appointment to posts reserved for backward class categories unless eligibility for such claim was established.
Selection and appointment on provisional basis subject to production of caste validity certificate, was transitory and now the practice prevailing has been brought to an end after about a period of nineteen years of bringing into force of the said act, it said further.
“In our view, the very object and purpose of introducing such clause or condition are to prevent the entry of spurious, in-genuine and ineligible claims and to promote claims of genuine and eligible claimants,” the bench said.
“It is a step taken to enforce the constitutional mandate of the equal opportunity provided under Articles 14 and 16 and to prevent the fraud, which is being played and perpetrated by bestowing the benefits upon undeserving imposters.”
