L.S. Jamir, J. - The petitioner belongs to the Ahir Goala Community, which is a recognised More Other Backward Classes (MOBC), by the Government of Assam. The petitioner passed B.Sc. in the year 2000 and also has a Diploma in Computer Education. The petitioner being unemployed also got himself registered under the District Employment Exchange, Karimganj, with registration No. 1055/2001 dated 28.06.2001. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, (Treasury Establishment), Government of Assam, issued an advertisement dated 22.07.2015 inviting applications from intending candidates to fill up 12 (twelve) posts of Junior Accounts Assistant (Jr.A.A). Out of the 12 (twelve) posts advertised, 6 (six) posts were reserved for the Unreserved Category, one post for Scheduled Caste and 5 (five) posts for OBC/MOBC. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner submitted the application in the Standard Form, wherein, there was no column for indicating his Caste as OBC/MOBC and therefore, at Serial No. 9 of the Standard Form, the petitioner did not write his Caste. However, in Serial No. 8 of the Standard Form, the petitioner indicated his Community as Tea Garden Labour Community. Thereafter, on the basis of issuance of an Admit Card, the petitioner appeared for written examination on 21.02.2016. The petitioner was successful in the written examination and accordingly, by letter dated 28.02.2017 the petitioner was called for appearing both the Interview and Computer Test on 11.03.2017 in the Conference Hall of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj.

Thereafter, as the results were not made known to the petitioner, the brother of the petitioner made an application under the RTI on 28.03.2017 and accordingly, the Public Information Officer and Treasury Officer, Karimganj replied by letter dated 26.04.2017 informing that out of 12 (twelve) posts, 5 (five) posts were reserved for OBC/MOBC and 774 numbers of applications were received, out of which 752 were called for the Written Test, where 440 applicants appeared in the Written Test. 37 (thirty seven) candidates qualified for the Interview and Computer Test and thereafter, 10 (ten) candidates were found eligible for appointment and that 2 (two) posts of OBC/MOBC category remained vacant. However, as the petitioner could not get a proper reply from the letter dated 26.04.2017, he made another RTI application on 08.05.2017 seeking for marks obtained by all the 37 (thirty seven) qualified candidates in the Written Test, Interview and Computer Test. A further query was made by the petitioner requesting the marks obtained by the 10 (ten) candidates who had got appointment. In the RTI reply, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 50 marks in English, 42 in Maths and 47 in General Knowledge and in the Interview, he is shown to have obtained 21.75 marks and in the Computer Test, 1.95 marks. However, the rest of the other queries were not replied and therefore, the petitioner made an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj on 05.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner received reply dated 06.07.2017, wherein he was informed that the information related to other candidates could not be furnished. As the petitioner belongs to the MOBC Category, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to appoint the petitioner in either of the 2 (two) vacant posts reserved for OBC/MOBC Category.

2. Heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

3. Mr. U. K. Nair, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that in the Standard Form of Application, there is no column for writing the Caste of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not write his Caste and instead, in Serial No. 8 of the Standard Form, he had indicated his Community as Tea Garden Labour Community. He submits that the petitioner belongs to the Ahir Goala Community, which is recognised as an MOBC Category by the Government of Assam. It is submitted that in the Office Memorandum, dated 04.01.1984, wherein the list of OBC including the MOBC has been given, the Ahir Goala Community appears at Serial No. 80. Further, in the letter dated 27.11.1975, the Tea Garden Labourers or Tribes appearing therein at Serial No. 25 has been classified as Other Backward Classes (OBC). Therefore, when the Ahir Goala Community is recognised as an MOBC Category and the Tea Garden Labourers Community has been recognised as Other Backward Community, the petitioner is entitled to get reservation under the law. As there was no provision in the Standard Form of Application, the petitioner could not indicate his caste. However, at Serial No. 8 of the Standard Form, the petitioner has clearly mentioned as belonging to the Tea Garden Labour Community. He also submits that while submitting the Standard Form of Application, the petitioner had enclosed his MOBC Certificate dated 13.01.1997 issued by the competent authority as well as the Employment Registration Identity Card, wherein it is clearly indicated that the petitioner belongs to the MOBC Category. Therefore, though the petitioner could not indicate his Caste in the Standard Form of Application, however, considering that he had submitted his MOBC Certificate and the Employment Registration Identity Card as well as having indicated his Community as Tea Garden Labour Community in the Standard Form of Application, the respondents should have considered his case under the MOBC Category, and thereafter, select him for being appointed against one of the 5 (five) posts reserved for OBC/MOBC Category.

4. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that from amongst the 12 (twelve) posts of Junior Accounts Assistant, 5 (five) posts were reserved for OBC/MOBC and that the respondents had appointed only 3 (three) candidates from the OBC/MOBC Category to the said 5 (five) reserved posts and therefore, there are still 2 (two) vacancies of Junior Accounts Assistant to be filled up by the OBC/MOBC candidates. As there are 2 (two) clear vacancies and the petitioner having secured marks making him eligible to be appointed as an OBC/MOBC candidate, a direction should be issued to the respondents to consider appointing him to one of the 2 (two) vacancies reserved for OBC/MOBC Category. He also submits that non-consideration of the petitioner for appointment was due to the fact that the respondents had considered the case of the petitioner under the Unreserved Category, which is most illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner had submitted both his MOBC Certificate and the Employment Registration Identity Card, which clearly indicates that he belongs to the MOBC Category. As there was no particular column permitting the petitioner to identify his Caste in the Standard Form of Application, such lacuna could not have permitted the respondents to have considered the petitioner under the Unreserved Category. He has also placed reliance in the case of Gohin Borah Vs. State of Assam, (2016) 3 GauLT 270 and also in the case of Sultan Uddin Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 575/2016), which was disposed of by this Court on 04.04.2017.

5. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, on the other hand submits that though the petitioner belongs to the MOBC Category, he did not submit the said MOBC Certificate alongwith the Standard Form of Application for the posts of Junior Accounts Assistant as required under Para 1 (b) of the Advertisement and therefore, the petitioner was treated as a General Category candidate. While not denying the fact that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the Employment Registration Identity Card alongwith his application, he further reiterates that the MOBC Certificate was not attached with the application, which was a requirement in terms of the Advertisement dated 22.07.2015 nor was the MOBC Certificate of the petitioner produced at the time of verification. Accordingly, the respondents could not have known that the petitioner belongs to the MOBC Category and therefore, he was considered under the General Category. By producing the records, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, further submits that at no point of time, either at the time of submission of the application nor at the stage of verification as well as during the interview was the MOBC Certificate produced by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot take a plea before this Court that he had submitted his MOBC Certificate at the time of making his application, nor at a later stage and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He also submits that the reliance placed upon to the authorities by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has no application to the present case inasmuch as in those cases, the petitioners had submitted the OBC/MOBC Certificate at the time of submission of their applications and therefore, this Court had given a direction to the respondents therein for reconsideration of the matter. However, in the present case, as the petitioner, at no point of time had submitted his Caste Certificate, no direction can be issued to the respondents at such a belated stage.

6. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. A consideration of the Advertisement dated 22.07.2015 clearly indicates that the intending candidates have been directed that the applications must be accompanied by self attested copy of Caste Certificate, where applicable, amongst other requirements.

8. The records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, has also been perused by this Court. A perusal of the same would clearly indicate that though the petitioner has mentioned his Community in the Standard Form of Application, as belonging to the Tea Garden Labour Community, the MOBC Certificate has not been attached alongwith the application. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had enclosed the MOBC Certificate alongwith the Standard Form of Application cannot be accepted.

9. The reliance made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Gohin Baruah as well as in the case of Sultan Uddin Ahmed has also been considered by this Court. However, in both the cases relied upon, the petitioners therein had submitted their MOBC Certificates alongwith the Standard Form for Application. However, the respondents had considered them under the General Category and therefore, directions were issued by this Court to reconsider the case of the petitioners therein.

In the present case, a perusal of the records would clearly indicate that the petitioner did not submit his MOBC Certificate alongwith the Standard Form of Application and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reliance made to the cases by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case in hand.

10. A further perusal of the records would also indicate that at no stage was the MOBC Certificate produced by the petitioner and therefore, the respondents cannot be blamed in having considered the case of the petitioner under the General Category.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed herein above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

12. No cost.

13. Return the records to Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department forthwith.