LI Network
Published on: November 02, 2023 at 00:18 IST
The Supreme Court has reprimanded the State of Gujarat for its discriminatory practice of allowing certain candidates to submit their caste certificates beyond the stipulated deadline during an appointment process.
The issue at hand pertains to the selection process for the position of Vidya Sahayak (Music) conducted back in 2007. Two visually challenged applicants had applied under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category but failed to submit their caste certificates within the specified time frame. Consequently, they were categorized under the general category.
These applicants, determined to address this injustice, took their case to the Gujarat High Court. They highlighted instances where the State had allowed some candidates to present their caste certificates during the interview stage after the cutoff date. Recognizing the unequal treatment of candidates, the High Court, in 2011, directed the State to consider the applicants under the SEBC category. Dissatisfied with this verdict, the State escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court took note of the State’s discriminatory approach towards various candidates, particularly acknowledging that certain candidates were permitted to furnish their caste certificates during the interview phase.
In response, a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asserted:
“In view of the fact that the appellants had patently discriminated against the respondents by permitting some candidates who had not submitted their caste certificates to do so at the stage of the interview, whereas the applications of the respondents were rejected on the ground that they had not submitted the SEBC certificates along with their applications, we are inclined to uphold the impugned judgment.”
The Court also highlighted that both respondents, despite their visual impairment, had scored the highest marks and secured the top positions even in the SEBC category. They had spent a decade and a half seeking their rightful rights, and the Court emphasized the unfairness of this situation.
Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment and directed the State Government to take immediate action to comply with the judgment’s directives within four weeks.
The Court noted that the candidates were not over-age and clarified that the respondents should receive the same benefits as those extended to other candidates selected for the advertised post.
The appeal was dismissed, with the State being ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to each of the respondents. This ruling underscores the importance of fair and non-discriminatory practices in such matters.