इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट : निवास के आधार पर नौकरी देने से इंकार करना असंवैधानिक

इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट  : निवास के आधार पर नौकरी देने से इंकार करना असंवैधानिक

प्रयागराज: इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने कहा है कि जब कोर्ट ने पहले ही निवास के आधार पर नौकरी देने से इन्कार किए जाने को असंवैधानिक करार दिया है तो कट आफ डेट के बाद निवास प्रमाणपत्र जमा करने के आधार पर नियुक्ति से मना नहीं किया जा सकता। कोर्ट ने याचिका स्वीकार करते हुए बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी बुलंदशहर को दो माह के भीतर भर्ती में चयनित याची को नियुक्ति पत्र जारी करने का निर्देश दिया है। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति पंकज भाटिया ने नीतू की याचिका पर दिया है।

इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि जब कोर्ट ने पहले ही निवास के आधार पर नौकरी देने से इंकार करने को असंवैधानिक करार दिया है तो कट आफ डेट के बाद निवास प्रमाणपत्र जमा करने के आधार पर नियुक्ति से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता। कोर्ट ने याचिका स्वीकार करते हुए बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी बुलंदशहर को दो माह में भर्ती में चयनित याची को नियुक्ति पत्र जारी करने का निर्देश दिया है और कहा है कि याची कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से वेतन पाने की हकदार है।

कोर्ट ने इस मांग को मानने से इंकार कर दिया कि चयन के बाद नियुक्त न करने से वेतन दिया जाए। कोर्ट ने कहा काम नहीं तो वेतन नहीं के सिद्धांत पर याची वास्तविक कार्यभार ग्रहण करने से वेतन पाने की हकदार हैं। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति पंकज भाटिया ने नीतू की याचिका पर दिया है।

याची का सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती 2019मे चयन हुआ।नियम था कि अभ्यर्थी प्रदेश का मूल निवासी हो या पांच साल से लगातार प्रदेश में निवास कर रहा हो और चयन के बाद सत्यापन के समय निवास प्रमाणपत्र दिखाये।

याची हरियाणा की मूल निवासी हैं।उसकी शादी गाजियाबाद में 2012मे हुई है।याची चयनित हुई और उसे अमेठी जिला आवंटित किया गया।याची ने निवास प्रमाणपत्र कट आफ डेट 28मई 20के बाद का दिया। जिससे नियुक्ति करने से इंकार कर दिया गया।जिसे चुनौती दी गई थी।

याची का कहना था कि जब कोर्ट ने सुमित व विपिन कुमार मौर्य केस में अपने फैसले में निवास के आधार पर किसी नागरिक को नौकरी देने से इंकार करने को असंवैधानिक करार दिया  है तो उसे निवास के आधार पर नियुक्ति देने से इंकार करना भी असंवैधानिक है। कोर्ट ने तर्क से  सहमत हो याचिका मंजूर कर ली और नियुक्ति करने का निर्देश दिया है।

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Reserved on 7.9.2021

Delivered on 21.9.2021

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4871 of 2021

Petitioner :- Neetu

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Yatindra

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"(I). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorary quashing the impugned government order dated 04.12.2020 to the extent insoar as point no. 3 (1) is concerned (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition).

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorary quashing the impugned government order dated 05.03.2021 to the extent insofar as para 2(2) is concerned (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition).

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents specially the District Basic Education Officer, District Bulandshahar to issue appointment order to the petitioner on the the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School in District Bulandshahar and to pay her salary month to month in pursuance of the select list 30.11.2020 and counselling dated 02.12.2020."

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition are that the State Government issued Government Order dated 1.12.2018 for conducting recruitment of Assistant Teacher and an advertisement was issued to the effect known as Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019.

4. The selection/recruitment and other conditions governing the Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools run by the Board of Basic Education are Governed by the Basic Education Act, 1972 and U.P Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008.

5. It is argued that the Act of 1972 and the Rules of 2008 do not provide for requirement of domicile/residence for selection to the posts of Assistant Teacher

6. Paragraph 4 (4) of the Guidelines dated 1.12.2018 issued by the State Government for recruitment provided that eligibility for recruitment would be that the candidate should be Indian national and either domicile of UP or residing in UP for the last five years. The criteria is reproduced hereinbelow:

4(4) निवास- ऐसे अभ्यर्थी आवेदन हेतु पात्र होंगे जो भारत के नागरिक हो, तथा या तो उत्तर प्रदेश के मूल निवासी हों अथवा आवेदन की तिथि के पूर्व उत्तर प्रदेश में निरन्तर 05 वर्ष से स्थायी रूप से निवास कर रहे हो। अभ्यर्थी द्वारा निर्धारित प्रारूप पर सक्षम स्तर से निर्गत निवास पत्र चयन/सत्यापन के समय चयन समिति के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया जाना अनिवार्य होगा।

7. No separate guidelines was provided for female candidates. The petitioner having the requisite qualification applied for recruitment under the General category and was declared qualified. After the declaration of the result, the State Government issued Government Orders dated 13.5.2020 and 16.5.2020 indicating the manner of filling of the vacancies, as advertised, and no separate criteria for production of domicile certificate was provided therein (Annexure No. 5 & 6).

8. The petitioner claims that the petitioner was initially a resident of Haryana and passed her Secondary School Examination from Faridabad and her graduation from Rohtak, Haryana as well as B.Ed from Haryana. Subsequently, the petitioner got married to Sri Kuldeep Singh on 5.12.2012 and ever since her marriage, continued to stay at Ghaziabad, which is also indicated in her Marriage Certificate dated 19.8.2015.

9. The petitioner after being declared to be selected in the written examination moved an application online on the website of the Basic Education Board and in the tentative select list, name of the petitioner surfaced. The petitioner in terms of her selection, appeared before the Selection Committee on 2.12.2020 at District Amethi (her allotted district) along with her testimonials, however, she was not issued the appointment certificate solely on the ground that the domicile certificate of the petitioner was issued after the cut off date 28.5.2020. At this stage, the petitioner argues that by way of abundant caution, the petitioner had applied for issuance of domicile certificate at her matrimonial address i.e Ghaziabad on 16.5.2020, the date on which the advertisement was issued by the State and it was assured by the service provider that domicile certificate would be granted within seven days, however, the domicile certificate was actually issued to the petitioner on 3.6.2020. It is stated that the Government issued a clarification on 4.12.2020 wherein it was stated that only domicile certificate and caste certificate issued prior to 28.5.2020 are acceptable. In view of the same, an order was passed on 5.3.2021 cancelling the appointment of all the persons, who had produced caste and domicile certificates issued subsequent to 28.5.2020.

10. Counsel for the petitioner argues that for similar recruitment exercise carried out for earlier examination similar conditions with regards to requirement of mandatory domicile certificate was provided for. The said Guidelines were challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (A) No. 4714 of 2019 (Sumit and 14 others Vs. State of UP and 2 others) mainly on the ground that denying appointment solely on grounds of place of birth was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the requirements specified in the Recruitment Rules. The said contention was accepted and the said petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 8.5.2019 whereby considering the mandate of Article 16 (2) of Constitution of India, Clause 2 of the Guidelines dated 19.8.2018 was declared ultra vires the 1981 Rules and was held to be unconstitutional and in violation of Article 16(2).

11. He further argues that the State of UP while carrying out exercise for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineers and other technical staff provided for horizontal reservations only to persons domiciled in the State which was challenged before this Court. This Court delivered a detailed judgment dated 16.1.2019 in Writ A No. 11039 of 2018 (Vipin Kumar Maurya and 4 others vs. State of UP) and declared the said provision contained in Government Order dated 9.1.2007 as ultra vires Article 16(2) and 16(3) of The Constitution of India.

12. The present writ petition, thus, contends that once the Guidelines of providing the domicile certificate are held to be unconstitutional, similar requirement of domicile in present recruitment examination is also unconstitutional and ultra vires 1981 Rules. He argues that Rules of Recruitment being the same i.e 1981 Rules, the facts of the case are identical to the facts, which led to passing of judgment in case of Sumit and others Vs. State (supra), as such, Point No. 3 (1) of the impugned Government Order dated 4.12.2020 (Annexure No. 13) and Paragraph 2(2) of the Government Order dated 5.3.2021 (Annexure No. 14) should be declared to be ultra vires the 1981 Rules and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 16(2).

13. He, thus, claims that the petitioner is entitled for reliefs claimed and for issuance of appointment letter.

14. In view of the contention raised by the petitioner and as the facts being similar to the one leading to passing of judgment in case of Sumit and others Vs. State, I do not see any reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by this Court in judgment of Sumit and others (supra).

15. Interpreting similar questions, this Court has held in case of Vipin Kumar Maurya (supra) that denial of employment on basis of domicile is violative of Article 16(2) and 16(3) of the Constitution of India.

16. Adopting the reasoning as contained in the judgment of this Court in case of Sumit Vs. State (supra) and in case of Vipin Kumar Maurya Vs. State (supra), the Point No. 3 (1) of the impugned Government Order dated 4.12.2020 (Annexure No. 13) and Paragraph 2(2) of the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure No. 14) impugned herein are declared to be ultra vires the 1981 Rules and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 16(2).

17. Once the condition specified in Point No. 3 (1) of the impugned Government Order dated 4.12.2020 (Annexure No. 13) and Paragraph 2(2) of the Government Order dated 5.3.2021 (Annexure No. 14) impugned herein are declared to be ultra vires the 1981 Rules and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 16(2), I have no hesitation in holding that denial of appointment letter to the petitioner solely on the ground that domicile certificate issued to the petitioner was subsequent to the cut off date, cannot be accepted .

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondent No. 4, District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahar is directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in terms of her selection.

19. The prayer of the petitioner for payment of her salary from the date her name surfaced in the select list is rejected on the ground of ''no work no pay'.

20. It is clarified that the appointment letter, as directed above, shall be issued to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date the petitioner approaches the Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner shall also be entitled to her salary and other benefits after her actual joining.

21. Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.

Order Date :- 21.9.2021

vinay