Judgment:
Bhagwati Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby he was denied admission in the Government Polytechnic College. The reason given by the respondents for denying admission to the petitioner is that his certificate issued by a Government Officer showing his status as Scheduled Caste does not record his surname. It only says, Anil Kumar son of Sualal, without specifying Berwal as his surname. Before the interview board the petitioner's candidature was not considered because the petitioner failed to fulfil the direction No. 7 of the brochure which is in terms of Rule 9(3)(i), Direction 7 reads as under-
7 tkfr izek.k&i;=%& ;fn vH;FkhZ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr @ vU; fiNM+k oxZ dk gS rks mUgs ewy tkfr izek.k&i;= l{ke vf/kdkjh ftyk/kh'k] mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ;k rglhynkj }kjk iznRr izek.k&i;= layXu fu/kkZfjr izi= es izLrqr djuk gksxk A bl izek.k&i;= ij izsf'kr la[;k] fnukad ,oa dk;Zky; dh lhy gksuk vfr vko';d gS] bl izek.k&i;= es uke miuke ogh gksuk pkfg, tSlk fd vadrkfydk es vafdr gSA
2. The contention of the respondents is that in the certificate no surname is added and, therefore, this clause has not been complied with and, therefore, his form was not considered to be complete in terms of 9(3)(i) of Annex. R.1, which reads as under-
v^^vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ,oa vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;FkhZ;ks ds fy, l{ke vf/kdkjh ftyk/kh'k] mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] ;k rglhynkj }kjk iznRr izek.k i= ykuk gksxk A bl i= izs'k.k la[;k] fnukad] ,oa dk;Zky; dk lhy gksuk vko';d gSA vH;FkhZ ;g ns[k ys fd mldh tkfr jkT; ljdkj }kjk izlkfjr vqulwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr @ vU; fiNM+k oxZ dh lwph es lwphc) gS ftlds u gkus ij izos'k nsuk laHko ugh gksxk A bl izek.k i= es uke ,oa miuke ogh gksuk pkfg, tks fd vad rkfydk es gSA
izek.k&i;= layXu ifjf'k'V 5 es izLrqr djuk gskxkA
3. The petitioner's marksheet mentions his name as Anil Kumar Berwal son of Sua Lal Berwal. His caste certificate Annex. 8 mentions him as Anil Kumar son of Sua Lal only and his caste 'Berwal' was not mentioned. Therefore, the respondents contend that the petitioner's case was not liable to be considered because the surname has not been mentioned in terms of condition No. 9(3)(i) of Annex. R.1 and Condition No. 7 of Annex. R.2.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no control of the petitioner over the State authorities who are responsible for issuing the caste certificate Annex, 8. It was for the State authorities to have known it as to what kind of identification have to be put in the certificate. The petitioner had applied for issuance of a caste certificate. He has been issued a caste certificate of the Scheduled Caste nature. This was beyond the control of the petitioner to have used the surname in the caste certificate. Because neither he was required to fill up his surname in that certificate nor he could direct the authorities to put the surname in the caste certificate.
5. The respondents without applying their mind have denied admission to the petitioner. Such denial of admission to the petitioner has given liberty to the respondents to deny a seat to a member of the Scheduled Caste. By this they had an opportunity of obliging someone down below in the merit. May be with this ulterior motive they have denied admission to the petitioner on this score. To deny admission to the petitioner on this score, the respondents were required to shows that the petitioner lacked bona fides and his certificate was not good enough to show his identity.
6. The petitioner's name and father's name was clearly mentioned in the marksheet. The petitioner's name and father's name was clearly mentioned in the caste certificate Annex. 8. The caste certificate was issued by the authority empowered to do the same. There was no confusion and ambiguity in the comparison of these two documents. Only because in the instructions Annex. R.1 and R.2 it has been written that name and surname should be the same as is mentioned in the marksheet, the petitioner could not have been denied admission. The difference does not mean that the identity of the petitioner was not the same. The petitioner has not used any other surname than the one which was mentioned in the caste certificate. In fact, in the caste certificate the State authorities have not mentioned any surname. In this background it cannot be said that there is any discrepancy in the marksheet and the caste certificate. At best it can be said that if the surname is used then the same surname should have been used. There should not have been any variance. In the instant case the surname has not at all been mentioned by the Officer of the State Government issuing it. In absence of any contradiction the respondents were required to exercise a rational attitude and see that the caste certificate belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner was in the merit and he deserves admission.
7. It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no law in this country which requires a person that while using his name he is under an obligation to use his surname. Entire frame work of the Constitution says that the indian society should be a society where no discrimination is made on the basis of caste and creed. In a secular society a person is not required as a rule to use his surname. Non-use of surname of the petitioner by the Officer of the State Government has visited denial of admission to the petitioner, in a course to which according to his merit he was entitled to admission.
8. The petitioner has further drawn attention of the court to Annex. 6 whereby he has approached the Tehsildar on this count. The Tehsildar intimated that it is not possible for him to add the surname and this communication of the Tehsildar was brought to the notice of the respondents alongwith the Circular Annex. 7. It is a State Government's communication which says that from the State Government's forms arid registers the provision for surname and caste should be deleted, the respondents, in the face of this communication of the Tehsildar Beawar who has made his position clear that using of surname is prohibited under the State Government's orders containing in Annex. 7, a notification, have not cared and considered to do the needful.
9. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.
10. The respondents were called upon to show the law whereby it is required that a man in law is bound to use his surname with his name. Despite opportunities being afforded to the respondents, they have failed to show any law except Annexs. R.1 and R.2 whereby the petitioner was required to use his surname. Annexs. R.1 and R.2 do not speak in terms that the surname is required to be mentioned. What is contended in Annexs. R.1 and R.2 is that name and surname should be the same as is mentioned in his marksheet. In the instant case where the surname has not at all been mentioned there is no case of any discrepancy. Therefore, the respondents have erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
11. The respondents have been intimated by the Tehsildar who has issued the caste certificate Annex. 8 vide Annex. 6 and 7 that the State Government has issued instructions to delete the reference of caste and sub-caste from the forms and registers of the State Government. This circular is prohibitive in character in its implementation should have been considered by the respondents. No explanation has been coming forward from the respondents as to why they have not considered the implication of these communications.
12. Non-consideration of these...respondents in the face of these communications tantamounts to flouting of the orders of the State Government without any rhyme or reason. Such flouting of the orders of the State Government has resulted into an illegal deprivation of the present petitioner seeking admission to a course to which he was entitled to, in accordance with his merit. This Court feels that an unfair treatment has been given by the respondents to the petitioner. The respondents have not discharged their duties faithfully as required under the law because if they were aware of the provisions of Annexs. R.1 and R.2 then the Tehsildar vide Annex.6 intimated them and annexed with it a copy of the State Government circular Annex. 7 whereby the State Government has made a clear provision that from all forms and register the provisions regarding caste and sub-caste should be erased. Therefore, in this context, they have been required to follow the State Government's orders in letter and spirit. Having not done so, the officers of the respondents who are responsible for processing the form of the petitioner were clearly in error in denying admission to the petitioner. Therefore, they have failed to discharge their duties faithfully.
13. To correct their action a notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 to remain present in the Court and make his position clear. Mr. R.B. Khunteta, respondent No. 2 presented himself before the Court from 21.12.1999 but he was not equipped with full instructions. He was given one day's time to seek further instructions from the Director. The matter was posted for today. On this day too he failed to make his position clear and that of the department as to why the department and the authorities who have processed the form of the petitioner have not cared to look into the State Government notification and remedied the wrong done to the petitioner.
14. The predicament of the petitioner in the present controversy was that the authority empowered to issue the caste certificate was not prepared to write his surname. In doing so the authority was banking upon the State Government order. The respondents were insisting that the name used in the mark-sheet should tally with the certificate issued by the State Government. The petitioner had no control whatsoever to get his surname inserted in the caste certificate Annex. 8 unless the authority issuing it agreed. The authority not only disagreed but communicated its disagreement to the respondents. The disagreement was supported by the State Government order. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for creating a situation wherein there was no surname mentioned in the certificate issued by an officer of the respondent State. On this score, condemning the petitioner cannot be considered to be rational approach. The respondents were not prepared to take any step to remedy the wrong committed with the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was called and was also asked to seek instructions from the respondent No. 1. Under these circumstances, it appears to be a deliberate act of the respondents which has resulted in depriving the petitioner of his legitimate claim and, thus, the respondent authorities have acted in an irresponsible manner.
15. In view of the non-responsive conduct of the officers of the respondents this Court feels that they have been neglecting to perform their duties in the fashion they should have performed. Caste certificate of the petitioner was issued by an officer of the respondent State. The Tehsildar was guided by the instructions of the State Government. Not examining this aspect is a case of apathy. This is a case of dereliction of duty. This dereliction of duty has resulted in depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right of admission in the Government Polytechnic College to pursue his studies. Therefore, a loss has been caused to the petitioner for which the officers of the respondent department are liable to compensate the petitioner. This Court feels that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- should be paid to the petitioner. The State Government if thinks proper may realise this; amount from the salary of the officers who are responsible for committing the wrong. A further direction is issued that in view of the State Government notification, the petitioner's caste certificate was proper. Non-use of surname in the certificate issued by the State authorities should not visit him of any evil consequences. In this light, his case may be processed by the respondents in accordance with law.
16. With these observation, the writ petition is allowed.