Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep Yadav vs Staff Selection Commission on 14 May, 2026
1
O.A. No. 3997/2015
Item No. 47(C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3997/2015
Reserved on: 29.04.2026
Pronounced on: 14.05.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Sandeep Yadav (OBC)
Recruit Excise Inspector (CGLE-2011)
Aged about 29 years
S/o Sh. Harpal Singh
R/o House No. 225, VPO: Kazipur,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110073.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Through its Chairman,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 15
10:39:35
LANI +05'30'
2
O.A. No. 3997/2015
Item No. 47(C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"1. To quash and set aside the impugned orders/action and inactions mentioned in Para-1 of the OA and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant under OBC category on the basis of OBC Certificate dt. 8.11.2006 and Non-Creamy Certificate dt. 8.4.2011.
2. To direct the respondents to consider his name for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) under OBC Category and direct/ensure allocation of Gujarat Cadre for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) to the applicant as originally allocated with all consequential benefits from the date his junior in merit were allocated/appointed in Gujarat Cadre.
3. To award costs in favour of the applicant.
4. To pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA has been filed challenging the arbitrary refusal of the respondents to consider the applicant under the OBC category despite the fact that he belongs to "Yadav" community included in the Central and Delhi OBC List and was issued valid OBC Certificate dated 08.11.2006 and Non-Creamy Layer Certificate dated 08.04.2011. 2.1. Learned counsel contended that the rejection of his candidature on the ground of the certificate being older than 3 years is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tej Pal Singh vs GNCTD (2000 2 AD Delhi 428), ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 3 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed in Sunita vs GNCTD (2005 119 DLT 368), which clearly hold that eligibility cannot be denied on such technical grounds when caste status is undisputed.
2.2. Learned counsel argued that, due to this arbitrary stand of the SSC, the applicant was wrongly considered under UR category despite higher merit (Rank 1474) and, consequently, deprived of his rightful OBC-based cadre allocation, including Gujarat Cadre which was granted to similarly placed candidates with lower merit; hence, the OA seeks quashing of the impugned actions and directions for correct OBC consideration with all consequential benefits.
2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 967 of 2021 decided on 24.09.2024.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the present OA is hopelessly time- barred, having been filed in 2015 nearly 4 years after the cause of action arose, and is therefore not maintainable. 3.1. On merits, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant participated in CGLE-2011 under the terms of the Examination Notice dated 19.03.2011, which clearly mandated that OBC certificates must be issued within 3 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 4 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) years of the closing date (i.e., 15.04.2011) and in the prescribed format; however, the applicant produced an OBC certificate dated 08.11.2006 and a separate Non-Creamy Layer certificate dated 08.04.2011, both of which were not in conformity with the notified requirements, and hence his claim under OBC category was rightly rejected and he was considered under UR category as per the binding terms of the advertisement. 3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the selection process is strictly governed by the recruitment notice and cannot be altered on equitable considerations, and since the applicant accepted participation under these conditions and secured selection under UR category for Kerala cadre, no legal right survives to claim OBC benefits retrospectively. 3.3. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. ___ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No. 4001-4002 of 2023 tilted Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 The reliance placed on Poonam Dwivedi (supra) is misconceived. The controversy in that case pertained to the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 5 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) validity and relevant financial year of an EWS certificate. It is well settled that eligibility under the EWS category is required to be assessed with reference to a particular financial year, and consequently, such a certificate must be obtained afresh for each relevant financial year. The said requirement, being intrinsic to the nature of EWS classification, is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the determination of OBC status in the present case.
5.2 The respondents have now sought to introduce an altogether new ground, namely, that the OBC certificate furnished by the applicant was not in the prescribed format. This plea is clearly an afterthought and appears to have been raised only on the basis of certain observations in Poonam Dwivedi (supra). As per the respondents, the certificate ought to have been issued strictly in the prescribed format in the following manner:-
"ANNEXURE-VII (FORMAT OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES APPLYING FOR APPOINTMENT TO POSTS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) This is to certify that __________________________ son/daughter of __________________________ of village __________________________ District/Division __________________________ in the __________________________ State __________________________ belongs to the __________________________ Community which is recognized as a backward class under:
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 6 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4)
i) Resolution No. 12011/68/93-BCC dated the 10th September, 1993, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary - Part I, Section I, No. 186 dated 13th September, 1993.
ii) Resolution No. 12011/9/94-BCC, dated 19.10.1994 published in Gazette of India extraordinary Part I Section I No. 163, dated 20th October, 1994.
iii) Resolution No. 12011/7/95-BCC dated the 24th May, 1995 Published in the Gazette of India extraordinary Part-I Section I No. 88 dated 25th May, 1995.
iv) Resolution No. 12011/96/94-BCC dated 9th March, 1996.
v) Resolution No. 12011/44/96-BCC, dated the 6th December, 1996, published in the Gazette of India - Extraordinary-Part I, Section-I, No. 210, dated the 11th December, 1996.
vi) Resolution No. 12011/13/97-BCC dated 3rd December, 1997.
vii) Resolution No. 12011/99/94-BCC dated 11th December, 1997.
viii) Resolution No. 12011/68/98-BCC dated 27th October, 1999.
ix) Resolution No. 12011/88/98-BCC dated 6th December, 1999, published in the Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary Part-I, Section-I No. 270, 6th December, 1999.
x) Resolution No. 12011/36/99-BCC dated 4th April, 2000, published in the Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary Part-I, Section-I, No.71 dated 4th April, 2000.
xi) Resolution No. 12011/44/99-BCC dated 21.9.2000, published in the Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary Part-I, Section-I, No.210 dated 21.9.2000.
Shri __________________________ and/or his family ordinarily resides in the __________________________ District/Division of the __________________________ State. This is also to certify that he/she does not belong to the persons/sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT), dated 08.09.1993 and modified vide Govt. of India Deptt. of Personnel and Training OM No. 36033/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated 09.03.2004 & 14.10.2008." 5.3. Reference may be made to the Office Memorandum No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993 issued by the 5.3 Department of Personnel and Training, whereby modified instructions were circulated to all Ministries/Departments. The said O.M., inter alia, provided that, for the purposes of ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 7 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) reservation, the OBC category would initially comprise castes and communities common to both the lists contained in the report of the Mandal Commission and those notified by the State Governments. It was further stipulated that a consolidated list of such castes and communities would be issued separately by the Ministry of Welfare.
5.4. A model form of certificate to be furnished by candidates, issued by the authorities specified in paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 22.10.1993, is reproduced below. The said certificate is to be accepted by the Ministries/Departments for the purpose of extending the benefit of reservation to candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes:
"Annexure A Form of Certificate to be produced by Other Backward Classes applying for appointment to posts under the Government of India This is to certify that ...............................................................................
son of ............................................................................... of village ........................................................
District/Division ........................................................ in the ........................................................ State belongs to the ............................................................................... community which is recognized as a backward class under the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare Resolution No. 12011/68/93-BCC(C), dated 10th Sept. 1993 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I Section I dated 13th Sept. 1993. Shri ........................................................
and/or his family ordinarily reside(s) in the ........................................................
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 8 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) District/Division of the ........................................................ State.
This is also to certify that he/she does not belong to the persons/sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, Department of personnel & Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT), dated 8.9.93.
Dated: ............................................
Seal District Magistrate Deputy Commissioner etc. NB
(a) The term 'ordinarily' used here will have the same meaning as in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
(b) Where the certificates are issued by Gazetted Officers of the Union Government or State Governments, they should be in the same form but countersigned by the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner. (Certificates issued by Gazetted Officers and attested by District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner are not sufficient.)"
Insofar as reservation for Other Backward Classes and the exclusion of the creamy layer for the purpose of appointments to services and posts under the Government of India are concerned, it is pertinent to note that the format of the caste certificate to be produced by candidates was prescribed vide Annexure-A to O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 15th November, 1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The said format specifically referred to Resolution No. 12011/68/93-BCC(C) dated 10th September, 1993 issued by the then Ministry of Welfare, which contained the list of castes and communities recognized as OBCs at the relevant time. ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 9 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) 5.5. For the purpose of verification of caste/community status, only certificates issued by the following competent authorities shall be accepted:-
(a) District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/Collector/Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Collector/First Class Stipendiary Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Taluka Magistrate/Executive Magistrate/Extra Assistant Commissioner (not below the rank of a First Class Stipendiary Magistrate).
(b) Chief Presidency Magistrate/Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate/Presidency Magistrate.
(c) Revenue Officer not below the rank of 'Tehsildar'; and
(d) Sub-Divisional Officer ot the area where the candidate and/or his family normally resides.
5.6 The responsibility for the issue and verification of Caste Certificate lies with the concerned State/UT Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 2.9.1994 in the matter of in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Path vs Addi. Commissioner 1995 AIR 94, 1994 SCC (6) 241, has laid down the detailed guidelines for effective verification of the Caste Certificates of the employees, so that no person, on the basis of ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 10 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) fake caste certificate, may secure employment wrongfully in the Government.
5.7. The instructions contained in the following Office Memoranda/Orders issued by the Department from time to time are also relevant for consideration:-
(i) DoPT OM No.36019/7/1975-Estt (SCT) dated 31.10.1975 provides that the candidates belonging to the SC/ST category have to produce a Certificate in the prescribed form issued by one of the prescribed authorities in support of their claim of belonging to a SC/ST. Where such a candidate is unable to produce a Certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he may he appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima facie proof he is able to produce in support of his claim subject to his furnishing the prescribed Certificate within a reasonable time, and if there is genuine difficulty in his obtaining a Certificate, the appointing authority should itself verify his claims through the District Magistrate concerned.
(ii) DoPT OM No. 36011/16/80-Estt (SCT) dated 27.2.1981 provides that the verification of caste status at every important upturn of employees career is necessary, as an SC candidate may lose his status of SC if he embraces a religion other than Hinduism and Sikhism (DoPT OM No. 36011/3/2005-Estt (Res) dated 9.9.2005 provides that an SC candidate loses his SC status ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 11 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) if he embraces a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism).
(iii)DoPT, vide letter No. 36022/1/2007 - Estt (Res) dated 20.3.2007, have requested the State/UT Governments to issue instructions to the District Magistrates/District Collectors/Deputy Commissioners of the districts to the effect that they should ensure at their own level that veracity of the Caste/Community certificate referred to the district authorities is verified and reported to the appointing authority within one month of receipt of request from such authority. The State/UT Governments were also requested to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers who default in the timely verification of Caste Status.
(iv) DoPT, vide letter No. 41034/3/2012 - Estt (Res) dated 11.4.2012, have reiterated the above instructions dated 20.3.2007 requesting the State/UT Governments to issue instructions to the concerned district authorities to ensure veracity of the Caste/Community Certificate referred to them and report the same to the appointing authority within one month of receipt of request from such authority. This letter also conveys the directions of the Parliamentary Committee at that time on the Welfare of SCs and STs that the State/UT Governments may constitute a District-Level Committee in each District which may ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 12 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) hold regular meetings to ensure timely verification of Caste Certificates.
(v) DoPT OM No. 36011/l/2012-Estt (SCT) dated 8.10.2015 reiterates the earlier instructions on timely and effective verification of the Caste Certificate so that the benefit of reservation and other scheme of concessions etc. go only to the rightful claimants.
(vi) DoPT letter No. 36011/1/2012-Estt (SCT) dated 14.3.2016 addressed to all State/UT Government again reiterates the earlier instructions on verification of Caste Certificate within a reasonable time. (Ref: Para 3 of To No. 41034/4/2020-Estt (Res-I) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions Department of Personnel and Training North Block, New Delhi Dated the 19thMarch,2021 ) 5.8 To support of above Instructions more particularly, OM dated 8.10.2015, have been issued providing that where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes is unable to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he/she may be appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima-facie proof he/she is able to produce in support of his/her claim subject to his/her furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time and if there is genuine difficulty in his/her obtaining a certificate, the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 13 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) appointing authority should itself verify his/her claim through the District Magistrate concerned. 5.9 The certificate issuing authority should verify and ensure that caste and tribe to which the applicant claims to belong must be included in the Presidential Orders issued from time to time under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The candidate "ordinarily resides" in concerned state or part of that state. The term "ordinarily resides' has the same meaning as in section 20 of the Representation of the People Act 1950. 5.10 Later on vide OM dated 30.05.2014, the prescribed certificate was modified, which reads :
"No. 36036/2/2013- Estt.(Res.) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &Pensions Department of Personnel &Training Dated: 30' May, 2014 To, The Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments/Union Territories North Block, New Delhi Subject: Revision of format for OBC Caste Certificate The Government of lndia had issued instructions on 8"' September, 1993 vide DoPT O.M. No. 36012/22/93- Estt.(SCT) providing for reservation to Other Backward Classes inthe services and posts under the Government of India. The format of the Caste Certificate was prescribed vide Annexure A of the O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 15th , November, 1993. In the said format, the then Ministry of Welfare's Resolution No. 12011/68/93-BCC(C) dated 10 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 14 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) thSeptember 1993 was mentioned, which contained the list of castes and communities treated as OBCs till that time. Since then, a large number of castes and communities have been added to the Central List of OBCs through various resolutions of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The details ofthe resolutions subsequent to the Resolution dated l0 thSeptember 1993 do not find mention in the existing format. The said format also prescribes that the certificate issuing authority should certify that the candidate does not belong to the persons/sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule to the aforesaid O.M. dated 8.9.1993.
2. Representations have been received in this Department wherein candidates belonging to OBC communities have reportedly faced difficulty in getting the benefits of reservation. This is because of the fact that in the caste certificate issued by the concerned district authorities, although the name of the caste/community is mentioned in the certificate, the specific resolution by which the said caste/community has been included in the Central List of OBCs is not indicated.
3. Keeping in view such problems faced by the candidates, this issue was examined in consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes and it has been decided to revise the existing format of OBC Caste Certificate. A copy of the revised format is enclosed (Annexure). All the certificate issuing authorities are requested to invariably mention the details of the Resolution (Number and Date) by which the caste/community of the candidate has been included in the Central List of OBCs and also to ensure that helshe does not belong to the persons/sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule to the aforesaid O.M. dated 8.9.1993 as amended from time to time.
4. I am to request that the revised format of the Certificate may please be brought to the notice of authorities under the State GovernmentsNnion Territories who are empowered to issue the Caste Certificate.
Yours faithfully Under Secretary to the Government of India Phone- 01 1-23092110 Annexure -A ( Revised FORMAT)"
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 15 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) 5.11 Until 30.05.2014, a model form for the purpose of issuing caste certificates was in place, and the insistence on a revised certificate or the latest certificate format cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as the advertisement was issued and the selection was made prior to 30.05.2014. 5.12 In The General Manger, Southern Railway v. Ranga Chari 1962(2) SCR 586), it was held as under :
"In deciding the scope and ambit of the fundamental right of equality of opportunity guaranteed by this Article, it is necessary to bear in mind that, in construing the relevant Article, a technical or pedantic approach must be avoided. We must have regard to the nature of the fundamental right guaranteed, and we must seek to ascertain the intention of the Constitution by construing the material words in a broad and general way. If the words used in the Article are wide in their import, they must be liberally construed with material amplitude. Thus construed, it would be clear that matters relating to employment cannot be confined only to the initial matters prior to the act of employment. The narrow construction would confine the application of Art. 16(1) to the initial employment and nothing else; but that clearly, is only one of the matters relating to employment.
****** But in exercising its powers under the Article, it should be the duty of the State to harmonise the claims of the backward classes and those of the other employees, consistently with the maintenance of an efficient administration as contemplated by Art. 335 of the Constitution."
5.13 OBC certificate is ordinarily issued once and continues to hold validity unless there is a change in the status of the candidate. In the present case, the applicant had applied for and obtained the Non-Creamy Layer certificate dated 08.04.2011 well before the cut-off date i.e. 15.04.2011. A harmonious construction ought to be adopted while reading the OBC ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 16 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) certificate dated 08.11.2006 along with the Non-Creamy Layer certificate dated 08.04.2011, both of which were issued prior to the relevant cut-off date. The stand of the respondents that the OBC certificate dated 08.11.2006 was not issued within three years from the closing date of the application is hyper-technical and cannot be accepted so as to defeat the mandate of the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The said interpretation, if accepted, would render the beneficial object of the OBC reservation policy nugatory, which is impermissible in law. It is well settled that service conditions and eligibility criteria must be construed reasonably, and a pedantic or overly technical approach cannot be permitted to defeat the essential spirit and intent underlying them (See: Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India). The only substantive requirement is that the responsibility for issuance and verification of caste certificates lies with the concerned State/Union Territory authorities. For the purpose of verification of caste/community status, certificates issued by the following authorities alone are required to be accepted:-
(a) District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/ Collector/Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Camnissioner/Deputy Collector/1st Class Stipendary Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Taluka Magistrate/ ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 17 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) Executive Magistrate/E~tra Assistant Corrmissioner (not below the rank of 1st Class Stipendary Magistrate).
(b) Chief Presidency Magistrate/Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate/Presidency Magistrate.
(c) RevenueOfficer not below the rank of ''Tehsildar'; and
(d) Sub-Divisional Officer to the area where the candidate and/or his family normally resides.
Thus, the issue of genuineness of certificate ought to have been the main concern. The respondent authorities ought to have verified the said certificates. It is not even the case that the respondents that there is change in caste or status of applicant from OBC list of castes to any other category. Even the respondents have not rejected the candidature on the ground that OBC certificate dated 08.11.2006 and the Non-Creamy Layer certificate dated 08.04.2011 have not been issued by the competent authority.
5.14 In the case of Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India, (1974) 3 SCC 554, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"The judgment just delivered has my full concurrence but I feel impelled to make a few observations not on the merits but on governmental disposition to litigation, the present case being symptomatic of a serious deficiency. In this country the State is the largest litigant to-day and the huge expenditure involved makes a big draft on the public exchequer. In the context of expanding dimensions of State activity and responsibility, is it unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility in its litigation policy, the absence of which, in the present case, has led the Railway ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 18 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) callously and cantankerously to resist an action by its own employee, a small man, by urging a mere technical plea which has been pursued right up to the summit Court here and has been negatived in the judgment just pronounced. Instances of this type are legion as is evidenced by the fact that the Law Commission of India in a recent report [ Law Commission of India, 54th Report -- Civil Procedure Code] on amendments to the Civil Procedure Code has suggested the deletion of Section 80, finding that wholesome provision hardly ever utilised by Government, and has gone further to provide a special procedure for government litigation to highlight the need for an activist policy of just settlement of claims where the State is a party. It is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus- faced and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the poor, contest the claims of poor employees under it pleading limitation and the like. That the tendency is chronic flows from certain observations I had made in a Kerala High Court decision [P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India, AIR 1972 Ker 103, 107 : ILR (1971) 2 Ker 490 : 1971 Ker LJ 723] which I may usefully excerpt here:
"The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes, so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court. The lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show-downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957. This second appeal strikes me as an instance of disregard of that policy."
5.15 In Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. Versus Sehdev & Anr (W.P.(C) 938/2026 & CM APPL. 4600/2026, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 19 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) CM APPL. 4601/2026 decided on 20.03.2026), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed :
"40. We deem it necessary to highlight that rejection of candidature for failure to complete documentation carries grave and often irreversible consequences, especially when the candidate has duly qualified the written examination. For many aspirants, a government job represents years of preparation, financial investment, and personal sacrifice. Thus, disqualification at the final stage, particularly on technical grounds, not only significantly impact the professional prospects but also the psychological and economic stability of the candidate. Therefore, such rejection must be exercised with caution and only after the authority reaches a firm and reasoned conclusion that, the requirement was clearly communicated; the mode of communication adopted was reliable and verifiable; a fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the candidate to comply with prescribed norms and no administrative lapse acted as a contributory to the alleged non- compliance.
41. The principle of fairness demands that procedural rigidity must not defeat substantive justice. While this Court, is conscious that it cannot ordinarily interfere with recruitment processes or relax cut-off dates indiscriminately, nevertheless, we are duty-bound to intervene where denial of opportunity results from administrative inadequacy rather than candidate negligence. Ultimately, public recruitment which provides adherence to a particular timeline, the decision taken by the recruitment body must reflect both efficiency and equity. In essence, while procedural rigor safeguards administrative order, fairness in communication safeguards justice. A recruitment process that harmonizes both principles, not only withstands judicial scrutiny but also uphold the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness in public employment."
6. CONCLUION 6.1. In view of above discussion, we h quash and set aside the impugned orders/actions and inactions mentioned in Para-1 of the OA and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant under OBC category on the basis of OBC Certificate dated 8.11.2006 and the Non-Creamy Certificate dated 8.4.2011. ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:35 LANI +05'30' 20 O.A. No. 3997/2015 Item No. 47(C-4) 6.2. The respondents are directed to verify both certificates from the competent authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6.3. Upon receipt of the verification report, the respondents are directed to issue an offer of appointment within 30 days thereafter, if he otherwise fulfills the other eligibility conditions for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) under OBC Category and direct/ensure allocation of Gujarat Cadre for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) to the applicant, as originally allocated, with all consequential benefits from the date his immediate junior in merit was allocated/appointed in the Gujarat Cadre with consequential benefits on a notional basis. 6.4. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No Costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 15
10:39:35
LANI +05'30'