[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum vs The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
APHC010510012023 [3483]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26386 of 2023
Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum ...Petitioner
Vs.
The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. K B Ramanna Dora
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. N. V. Sumanth
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : ______________
Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
A notification, dated 10.11.2022, came to be issued by the Registrar
(Recruitment) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh inviting applications from
eligible candidates for filling up of 31 posts of Civil Judges of Junior Division in
Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service.
2. Out of the posts so advertised, 25 vacancies were to be filled up by
direct recruitment apart from the reservation provided for other categories, one
post was reserved for candidates belonging to BC-E category.
2
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
3. The petitioner applied for the said post under the BC-E category
(creamy layer). Her case however was considered under the open merit
category in view of the provisions of the advertisement notification, a
reference whereto shall be made in the later paragraphs.
4. The petitioner, it appears, had applied for the non-creamy layer
certificate on 15.11.2022 i.e., after the issuance of the notification dated
10.11.2022. The certificate was furnished to the petitioner on 19.08.2023. It
may be pertinent to mention here that the entire process of selection had been
completed by 08.08.2023.
5. After the petitioner had obtained the certificate issued by the
concerned Tahsildar in the prescribed format, she approached the
respondents with a representation, dated 11.09.2023, requiring her
consideration under the non-creamy layer of BC-E. The representation was
rejected by the administrative committee on the ground that the petitioner had
not satisfied the stipulated conditions as per the advertisement notification.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents
could not have ignored the petitioner for consideration under the reserved
category and that the certificate when produced by her, though after the
completion of process of selection, ought to have been considered, inasmuch
as even when there was delay in producing proof of her belonging to non-
creamy layer under the BC-E category, the right of the petitioner to be
considered under the said category could never have been defeated.
3
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
7. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of Charles K. Skaria Vs. C. Mathew1, wherein it was
held:
“20. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity.
To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification
before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is
unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before
the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor
because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but
before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus,
but still above board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the
mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to
the essence.”
8. Reliance was also placed upon Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board and another 2 , to emphasize the
point that the candidature of candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes
could not be rejected simply on account of late submission of caste
certificates.
9. The stand of the official respondents is that the petitioner had failed
to furnish the requisite certificate reflecting her to be belonging to non-creamy
layer, which certificate had to be appended along with the application form. It
was also urged that the petitioner had to produce the certificate of non-creamy
layer issued in the year 2021 or 2022 whereas the certificate that was
produced, much after the selection process was completed, was a certificate
issued in the year 2023.
1
1980 (2) SCC 752
2
2016 (4) SCC 754
4
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
10. According to the notification, the last date for receipt of application
was fixed as 8th of December, 2022.
11. At this stage, it may be necessary to reproduce the relevant
conditions of the advertisement notice.
According to the advertisement notification, dated 10.11.2022, Clause
IV provided for reservation which reads as under:
“The applicants who intend to avail/claim reservation
under Backward Classes (A, B, C, D & E) shall submit a
copy of the latest certificate issued either in the year 2021
or 2022 to the effect that they belong to non-creamy layer
in terms of G.O.Ms.No.3, Backward Classes Welfare (C2)
Department, dated 04.04.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.26,
Backward Classes Welfare (C) Department, dated
09.12.2013 and as per the income ceiling which is in force
on the date of notification. In case of non-submission of
the latest certificate, his/her candidature will be
considered against Open Category only.”
The method and manner of furnishing documents was envisaged under
Clause-V which reads as under:
“The applicant, who intends to avail reservation under
Backward Classes (A, B, C, D or E), shall upload latest
community and also certificate of non-creamy layer as per
law. In case of failure to upload the latest certificate, his/her
candidature will be considered against Open Competition.”
12. A reading of the aforementioned conditions would show that the
non-creamy layer certificate had to be issued either in the year 2021 or 2022
certifying that the petitioner belongs to non-creamy layer in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 04.04.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 09.12.2013.
5
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
13. As per the G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 04.04.2006, based upon the
recommendations made in that regard, the criteria of creamy layer based
upon the income insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned was
fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. This income criteria was subsequently
increased to Rs.6,00,000/- per annum for determining the creamy layer
among the BC categories for the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 09.12.2013.
14. The entire case set up by the petitioner is that notwithstanding the
fact that the petitioner had applied under the creamy layer in the application
form, since she had obtained the non-creamy layer certificate later on, much
after the conclusion of the entire selection process, she nevertheless ought to
have been considered under the said category.
In our opinion, the argument advanced is untenable for the simple
reason that the petitioner had clearly applied not under the non-creamy layer
category, but under the creamy layer category. She could, therefore, not have
been considered under the non-creamy layer at all.
15. Apart from this, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered
under the non-creamy layer of the BC-E category inasmuch as she had
produced the certificate much after the conclusion of the selection process. It
is reiterated that admittedly, the petitioner had applied for the non-creamy
layer certificate on 15.11.2022, after the issuance of the notification dated
6
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
10.11.2022, and the same was obtained on 19.08.2023, whereas the entire
process of selection had already been completed by 08.08.2023.
16. According to the advertisement notification, it was made clear to the
petitioner and similarly situated others that any applicant who intended to avail
the reservation had to upload the non-creamy layer certificate and in case of
failure to upload the same, that the candidate would be considered under the
open merit category. The petitioner therefore was required to upload the
requisite certificate before the last date for application prescribed in the
advertisement notification i.e., 8.12.2022 and, therefore, clearly her case could
not have been considered in any category except the open category as had
clearly been made clear in the said notification.
17. Moreover, the petitioner cannot get any benefit by placing reliance
upon the certificate in question issued in her favour by the Tehsildar
concerned, which does not satisfy the requirement of the advertisement
notification that the same had to be issued by the concerned authority either in
the year 2021 or 2022. The certificate in question which has been relied upon
by the petitioner has been issued in the year 2023 and therefore does not at
all satisfy the requirement of the advertisement notification.
18. Reliance placed upon by the Counsel for the Petitioner on the Apex
Court Judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya would be of no avail to the Petitioner
7
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
as a division bench judgment of the Apex Court in Divya v. Union of India3,
has held that the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya‘s case was in direct
conflict with the judgment of a three judge bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma v.
Chander Shekhar4.
19. In fact, the Apex Court in Divya‘s case was considering the issue as
to whether the UPSC was justified in prescribing the cut-off date for
possession and for uploading of the income and asset certificate to stake a
valid claim under the EWS category. The relevant rules prescribed that a
candidate ought to be in possession of the requisite income and asset
certificate based on the income for the year 2020-21 and that the candidate
should also be in possession of the certificate as on 22.02.2022. The case of
the petitioner before the Apex Court was that she was unable to obtain the
certificate for financial year 2020-21 before 22.02.2022 and further that for the
financial year 2021-22, she was able to obtain the certificate by 13.12.2022,
whereas she was not able to obtain the said certificate for 2020-21 till
16.03.2023. In that case, the last date for submission of the application forms
was 22.02.2022.
According to the rules, the petitioner should have been in possession of
all the requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claim by
the closing date of the application for civil services preliminary examination
2022. The Apex Court, in the aforementioned facts, held that since the
3
(2024) 1 SCC 448
4
(1997) 4 SCC 18
8
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
petitioners did not possess the valid documentation determining their eligibility
before the prescribed cutoff date, they could not complain if their claim for
categorization as EWS was rejected.
The Apex Court held:
“94.1 A. The candidates claiming benefit of EWS category for
purposes of CSE 2022 acquire eligibility only if they meet the criterion
prescribed by the central government in the OM dated 19th of January
2019 and 31st of January 2019 and are in possession of the required
income and asset certificate based on the income for the year 2020-21.
Further, as required under Rule 28 of the CSE rules 2022, read with
the OM of 19th of January 2019 and 31st of January 2019, the
candidate should have been in possession of the income and asset
certificate as on 22nd of February 2022. Any candidate not in
possession of the I and AC in the prescribed format as mentioned
hereinabove cannot claim the benefit of EWS category.”
20. It can be seen that although the petitioner before the Apex Court in
Divya‘s case was one claiming under the EWS category, yet the conditions of
eligibility prescribed for OBC candidates also required the non-creamy layer
certificate.
21. In the instant case, similarly the petitioner was required to upload
the non-creamy layer certificate issued either in the year 2021 or 2022 issued
in terms of G.O. No. 26, dated 9.12.2013, read with G.O. No. 3, dated
4.4.2006. We are dealing with the crucial issue of determining the eligibility of
the petitioner. Failure to do the needful within the time prescribed as per the
notification would render her to be considered only under the open category
and not under the non-creamy layer category of BC-E.
9
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
22. Be that as it may, in our opinion the case of the petitioner was rightly
rejected by the respondents for consideration under the non-creamy layer
category of BC-E. We find no merit in the present petition, which is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
akn
10
HCJ & RC, J
W.P. No:26386 OF 2023
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
W.P. No.26386 of 2023
DATE : _________
AKN
[ad_2]
Source link