The Supreme Court recently criticized Gujarat for permitting specific candidates to submit caste certificates beyond the deadline in an appointment process, citing discrimination.
The matter pertains to the 2007 selection process for Vidya Sahayak (Music). Two visually challenged applicants applied in the SEBC category but missed the caste certificate deadline, leading to their consideration in the general category.
The applicants, dissatisfied with the different treatment, sought relief from the Gujarat High Court, which, in 2011, instructed the State to reconsider them under the SEBC category. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge this decision.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the State's discriminatory approach toward various candidates. The State admitted that some candidates were permitted to present their caste certificates during the interview stage.
In this context, a bench consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made the following observation:
Considering that the appellants had clearly shown discrimination by allowing certain candidates to submit caste certificates during the interview stage while rejecting the respondents for not providing SEBC certificates with their applications, we are inclined to uphold the contested judgment.
The Court also observed that both respondents, despite their visual impairment, had achieved the highest scores and secured top positions in the SEBC category. The Court emphasized that despite their outstanding performance, they had been subjected to a lengthy and unjust process for the past fifteen years in pursuit of their rightful entitlements.
In light of these circumstances, the Court, while confirming the challenged judgment, instructed the State Government to promptly adhere to the directives outlined in the judgment within four weeks from the date of the judgment. This direction was issued upon confirmation that the candidates were not over the age limit.
Additionally, it was clarified that the respondents would be entitled to the same benefits as those granted to other candidates selected in response to the job advertisement for the same post. The appeal was rejected, and the State was directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to each of the respondents.
TAGS: Court Upholding judgment State Government Compliance Over-age Benefits Selected candidates Advertisement.
