Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. vs Mukesh Kumar Yadav on 8 March, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1060
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, A.K.Chawla
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.03.2019
+ W.P.(C) 10007/2018
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. N. K. Singh, Adv. for Ms. Avnish
Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD
(Services).
versus
MUKESH KUMAR YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raman Duggal, Mr. Qjuysa Joshi,
Mr. A.K. Panwar and Mr. Akshay
Choudhary, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi assails the order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench ('Tribunal') in OA No. 2961/2016.
2. The Tribunal had allowed the said OA preferred by the respondent and quashed the order dated 01.08.2016. By the order dated 01.08.2016, the petitioners had declared the result for the recruitment held for the post of Head Constable in Transport Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and the W.P.(C) 10007/2018 Page 1 of 5 respondent was not declared as successful, even though, he secured more marks in the examination held by the petitioners, than the last selected OBC category candidate. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to treat the respondent as an OBC candidate, and consider his candidature for the post of Head Constable under post code 43/13, if he was found otherwise eligible on all other parameters, as per law.
3. In response to the advertisement issued by the petitioners for recruiting Head Constables in Transport Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi under post code 43/13, the respondent made his application. Admittedly, he declared in the application form that he belongs to the General category/Unreserved category, even though, he belongs to OBC category and he also possessed the OBC certificate dated 19.02.2013, which had been issued prior to cut-off date.
4. The respondent was issued the admit card for the conduct of the written examination, wherein, his category was shown as "Unreserved". Upon noticing the same, the respondent made a representation that due to some technical mistake, he applied as a General category candidate instead of OBC category candidate. He has stated that he is in possession of OBC certificate dated 19.02.2013. He requested for change of his category from General to OBC. He did not receive any response to his representation. He was shortlisted by the petitioners in the category of Unreserved candidates with 159 marks. He again sent a representation on 16.06.2016 for change of his category to OBC, but to no avail. The petitioners then declared final result on 01.08.2016 in which the respondent was shown as not selected, by treating him as an Unreserved category candidate. The respondent then W.P.(C) 10007/2018 Page 2 of 5 approached the Tribunal with the grievance that the last selected OBC category candidate had secured 155.25 marks, whereas, he secured 159 marks and that, his candidature should have been considered as an OBC category candidate and he should have been declared successful.
5. The Tribunal has allowed the OA on the premise that since there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent is, indeed, an OBC category candidate, and he was in possession of a valid OBC certificate issued prior to cut-off date, he should not have been made to suffer on account of a bonafide mistake committed by him in filling-up the form.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this court has rejected the claim of the applicants placed in similar situation in the cases of Neeti Nayyar vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP(C) 12332/2018 decided on 19.11.2018 and Pooja Sehrawat vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP(C) 12563/2018 decided on 26.11.2018. He further submits that in Pooja Sehrawat (supra), this court has taken note of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Union Public Service Commission & Anr. vs. Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Anr.,WP(C) 10058/2009 decided on 25.01.2010, wherein, the view has been taken - that a candidate who does not provide the requisite degree/certificate along with the application form, cannot seek consideration of his application on the premise that he was not in possession of the degree on the relevant date, and he was able to obtain the same after the cut-off date.
7. We have perused the impugned order; the record placed before us, considered and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as W.P.(C) 10007/2018 Page 3 of 5 well as the two decisions of this court in Neeti Nayyar (supra) and Pooja Sehrawat (supra).
8. No doubt, the respondent did make the mistake of applying as an Unreserved category candidate for the post in question. We call it a mistake and not a deliberate act on the part of the respondent, since the respondent had nothing to gain by declaring himself as an Unreserved candidate when he, indeed, is an OBC category candidate and was having a requisite OBC certificate before the cut-off date.
9. Unlike the case of Union Public Service Commission (supra), or Neeti Nayyar (supra), or even Pooja Sehrawat (supra), in the present case, the respondent had pointed out the mistake committed by him and sought correction in the records of the petitioners at the earliest possible opportunity. Even before undertaking the examination, when he received the admit card declaring as an Unreserved category candidate, the respondent sent a representation to treat him as an OBC category candidate. The petitioners chose not to respond to the same. Even after the result was declared and the petitioners continued to treat him as General category candidate, he again represented on 16.06.2016 but to no avail. We may observe that in Union Public Service Commission (supra) the factual position was materially different. The applicants in that case had failed to produce their L.LB. Degree certificate along with their forms, which they were obliged to. Thus, Union Public Service Commission (supra) was a case where candidate had not submitted, by the cut-off date, the documentary evidence of their possessing the requisite qualification. As opposed to that, in the present, the applicants were not required to produce W.P.(C) 10007/2018 Page 4 of 5 their certificates, including caste certificates, while making their applications. In Neeti Nayyar's (supra) case, the candidate had participated as a General category candidate, the result whereof was declared in May, 2015. Around two years later, she sought consideration of her candidature as an OBC category candidate in 2017. It was in this background that the Tribunal rejected her original application and this court upheld the order of the Tribunal. In Pooja Sehrawat's (supra) case as well, the candidate had applied as an Unreserved candidate; undertaken the examination as an Unreserved category candidate, and; only after the written test was conducted, she made a representation that she was actually an OBC category candidate.
10. In the light of the fact that the Tribunal had allowed the OA granting relief to the respondent/applicant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J MARCH 08, 2019 rc W.P.(C) 10007/2018 Page 5 of 5