PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has granted two weeks to a petitioner to amend his plea challenging the denial of appointment to the post of Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD), with the dispute revolving around the validity of his OBC caste certificate.
The petition, filed by Shirishkumar Tarukar, came up for admission on February 2 and was further heard on February 10 before a Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamsandekar.
Tarukar submitted that he had cleared the recruitment process and was placed at serial number five in the OBC category, but was denied appointment, whereas selected candidates ranked above and below him were issued offer letters.
During the hearing on February 10, Tuesday, Advocate General Devidas Pangam, appearing for the State, informed the Bench that the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that his caste certificate was not valid as on the date of application. A copy of the official document was also provided to the petitioner.
Tarukar argued that the issue of caste certificate validity had already been settled by High Court rulings earlier, which held that such certificates are not limited to a fixed period but are lifelong. He sought liberty to challenge the government’s order denying him appointment solely on the ground of validity.
He also referred to statutory provisions that empower the Deputy Collector to issue caste certificates. The Bench allowed the petitioner two weeks to amend his petition accordingly.
During the previous hearing, the State had maintained that, as per Supreme Court guidelines, an OBC certificate carries a validity of one year, while a Goa government circular prescribes a validity of three years, considering possible changes in income. The AG submitted that Tarukar had produced a caste certificate dated February 12, 2015, which was treated as invalid by the PWD.
It was further pointed out that the recruitment advertisement was issued on July 18, 2025, with August 8, 2025 as the cut-off date for applications, and candidates were required to possess a valid caste certificate as on that date.
Departmental records showed that the petitioner later produced a certificate dated December 17, 2025, which was obtained after the cut-off date and even after the selection process. The AG had also stated that the certificate, though issued by the Deputy Collector, was not acceptable as it was obtained after the relevant date; hence, it was rejected. The matter will be taken up after the amended petition is filed.
