- (1.)The appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25948 of 2018 dated 27.07.2018 by which the writ petition preferred by him has been dismissed.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a Notification was issued on 23.07.2017 inviting applications for the post of Veterinary Assistant and the same is on record. In respect of Adilabad, ten posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Men) and four posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Women). In respect of Adilabad District, the posts were to be filled up with 100% reservation meant for local Scheduled Tribes. Undisputedly, no certificate of any kind was submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner for treating him to be a local Scheduled Tribe candidate. The process of selection was over and appointment orders were issued on 26.06.2018. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner has obtained a certificate on 09.07.2018. The writ petitioner came up before this court by filing a writ petition, stating that pursuant to the process of selection and pursuant to the issuance of appointment orders, as he has obtained a certificate certifying that he is a local Scheduled Tribe candidate, appointment order should be issued in his favour. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:-

"2. Petitioner participated in pursuant to the selections for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant in the agency area reserved for local ST candidates. As per the recruitment notification dated 23.7.2017, a local ST candidate has to produce local residence certificate to be eligible for consideration for such employment. Admittedly, petitioner has not obtained the certificate and produced before finalization of the selections and could secure such certificate only on 9.7.2018 by which date selections were finalized and orders of appointment were also issued on 26.6.2018. Petitioner filed this writ petition claiming that two vacancies remained unfilled and certificate obtained by him on 9.7.2018 should be considered for the purpose of providing employment in unfilled vacancies.

3. According to clause IV of the recruitment notification, the candidate is required to keep ready all the certificates mentioned therein for the purpose of verification. Item No.7 of this paragraph requires local schedule area certificate to be kept ready for verification. Thus, even by the time of verification of the certificates, the certificate showing the local status of the candidate should be available. This verification process was undertaken much prior to 26.6.2018, on which date appointment orders were issued on finalization of the selection process. In view of the mandatory requirement of recruitment notification, as petitioner did not have schedule area certificate with him by the time certificate verification was taken up, merely because two vacancies remain unfilled, he cannot seek consideration based on certificate obtained on 9.7.2018. Thus, writ petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. "

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has vehemently argued before this court that the present appellant is a local Scheduled Tribe since his birth and only caste certificate was not submitted in time. Therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of appointment by the authorities as well as by the learned Single Judge. Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the judgment delivered by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board 2016(4) SCC 754.

Paragraphs 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

"13. After hearing both the parties at length and perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we are of the view that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. We record our reasons hereunder.

14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra). In that case, the learned single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category. The learned single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India[4] as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Ors.[5] The learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) also considered another judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra), wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate.

The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) has been extracted in the case of Pushpa (supra) along with the speech delivered by Dr. Ambedkar in the constituent assembly and reads thus :-

"9 .....

xxx xxx xxx

251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to 'a minority of seats ', lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated:

" ... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a 'proper look-in ' so to say into the administration .... Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity .... Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation ... we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State, ... ". Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-702 (1948-49).

These words embody the raison d 'etre of reservation and its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, in so far as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal. "

17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.

18. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful. "

This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid case, before finalisation of the process of selection, at the time the provisional selection list was published, a certificate in respect of caste status was submitted by the candidate, whereas in the present case, the certificate has been submitted after the entire process of selection is over and appointment orders have been issued and therefore, to that extent, as there was no certificate filed along with the application form or there was no certificate filed at any point of time prior to issuance of appointment orders to other candidates, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition and therefore, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Admission is declined and the writ appeal is dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.