LI Network
Published on: November 02, 2023 at 12:28 IST
The Supreme Court has rebuked the State of Gujarat for its selective allowance of certain candidates to submit caste certificates after the cutoff date during an appointment process.
The issue revolves around the selection procedure for the Vidya Sahayak (Music) post conducted in 2007, where two visually impaired applicants applied under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category but were unable to provide their caste certificates within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, they were considered under the general category.
The two applicants, seeking justice, approached the Gujarat High Court, highlighting cases where the State had permitted specific candidates to furnish their caste certificates during the interview stage, even after the designated cutoff date.
Recognizing the inconsistent treatment of candidates, the High Court, in 2011, directed the State to categorize the two applicants under the SEBC group. In response, the State challenged this decision by taking the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also took note of the State’s discriminatory approach to different candidates, acknowledging that certain individuals had been allowed to present their caste certificates during the interview phase.
In light of these circumstances, a bench consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed:
“Given that the appellants had unmistakably discriminated against the respondents by allowing some candidates who had not submitted their caste certificates to do so at the interview stage, while the applications of the respondents were rejected for not submitting the SEBC certificates with their applications, we are inclined to uphold the impugned judgment.”
The Court further emphasized that both respondents, despite their visual impairments, had achieved the highest marks and topped the list in the SEBC category. Despite their stellar performance, they had been embroiled in a prolonged struggle for their rightful entitlements over the past fifteen years.
Consequently, the Court upheld the contested judgment and instructed the State Government to promptly implement the directions contained in the judgment within four weeks from the date of the decision. The Court issued this directive after confirming that the candidates were not over-age.
Furthermore, it was clarified that the respondents should receive the same benefits as other candidates selected in response to the job advertisement for the respective position.
The appeal was dismissed, with the State ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to each of the respondents as compensation for their prolonged ordeal.
