Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sneh Prabha vs National Informatics Centre on 8 August, 2025
1
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025
Item No. 21 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 766/2025 with OA No. 767/2025
Reserved on : 31.07.2025
Pronounced on : .08.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)
1. OA No. 766/2025
Sneh Prabha
Aged about 26 years
D/o Shri Tuntun Prasad Chourasia
R/o Vashundhara
near Pani Tanki
Village Khaira
P.O- Khaira, District - Saran
Bihar-841414
Mob: +91 7488622551
Roll. No. 22331290193 ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Amitesh Kumar with Ms. Priti Kumari)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Director General
National Informatics Centre (NIC)
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. National Informatics Centre (NIC)
Through Secretary
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025
Item No. 21 (C-4)
3. National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology
Through Director General
NIELIT Bhawan, Plot No. 3, PSP Pocket,
Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 077.
4. 21311370190
5. 21351890064 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Y. P. Singh, Mr. Awanish Kumar and Mr.
Narender Sharma)
2. OA No. 767/2025
Vinod Kumar Saini
Aged about 31 years
S/o Shri Kajod Mal Saini
R/o Bhojalawa Ki Dhani
Radhaswami Bagh
Jaithpura, Chomu
Jaipur, Rajasthan-303704
Mob: +91 8104742091
Roll. No. 22201190121. ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Amitesh Kumar with Ms. Priti Kumari)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Director General National Informatics Centre
(NIC) Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. National Informatics Centre (NIC)
Through Secretary
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
3
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025
Item No. 21 (C-4)
3. National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology
Through Director General
NIELIT Bhawan,
Plot No.3, PSP Pocket,
Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
4. 21311370190
5. 21351890064 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Y. P. Singh, Mr. Awanish Kumar and Mr.
Narender Sharma)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
As similar cause of action and common points of law are involved in both these OAs bearing Nos. 766/2025 - Sneh Prabha and 767/2025 - Vinod Kumar Saini, we are deciding them by a common order. For the sake of brevity and clarity facts of OA No. 766/2025 titled Sneh Prabha are discussed below.
This OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. Call for records of the case;
B. Quash and set aside Reserve Panel dated 12/02/2025 for the post of Scientific Officer/Engineer-SB passed by the Respondents, to the extent that the Applicant has been placed in the reserve panel;4
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) C. Quash & set aside the Provisional List of Candidates to the extent it does not include the name of the Applicant;
D. Pass an order directing the Respondents to re- draw the merit list after considering the Applicant under the OBC-NCL category for the post of Scientific Officer/Engineer-SB;
E. Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the post of Scientific Officer/ Engineer-SB under OBC (NCL) category with all consequential benefits including arrears etc;
F. Award cost of the proceedings; and G. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by NIC for recruitment to the post of Scientific Officer/ Engineer- SB, the applicant applied under OBC (NCL) category for the said post. She participated in the selection process including the written exam which held on 13.12.2023 where she qualified with 87.45426 marks which exceeded the threshold and was selected for the next stage of the recruitment process. She appeared in the document verification and interview held on 08.08.2024 and submitted all the requisite documents including OBC (NCL) certificates dated 05.05.2022 and 12.01.2024. However, the applicant did not find place in the provisional list published by the respondents. Thereafter, 5 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) a Reserve Panel List dated 12.02.2025 was issued whereby the applicant was shortlisted under Unreserved (UR) category instead of OBC(NCL) category. According to the counsel, in spite of the fact that the applicant fulfilled all necessary requirements and also submitted a valid OBC (NCL) Certificate, she was not considered as OBC (NCL) candidate; rather she was considered as a UR candidate. This action of the respondents was bad in the eyes of law. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a representation to the respondents via email on 13.02.2025 requesting to consider her OBC (NCL) Certificates. Hence to ventilate her grievance, the applicant has knocked the doors of this Tribunal.
3. The grounds on which the applicant's counsel based his arguments are as under :-
"A. The action of respondents is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
B. The respondents have violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
C. The applicant has been illegally and erroneously shortlisted under the UR category reserve panel despite having a valid OBC NCL certificate and scoring above the cut off marks.
D. The respondents failed to consider that the applicant possessed a valid OBC(NCL) certificate dated 05/05/2022 issued by the State of Bihar, which falls within the crucial period, i.e., 04/04/023, as prescribed by the respondents in 6 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) their Instructions to Candidates shortlisted for the Interview for the posts of Scientific Officer/Engineer-SB in NIC.
E. The applicant possesses an OBC certificate by birth, along with an OBC-NCL certificate dated 05/05/2022, duly issued by the competent authority. The applicant belongs to a community classified as OBC under the Central List of OBCs. The said certificate, as certified by the Revenue Officer, confirms that the applicant does not fall within the creamy layer, as specified in Column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training Ο.Μ. No. 36012/22/93-Estt (SCT) dated 08.09.1993 F. No such condition regarding submission of OBC (NCL) certificate should be issued within a specified timeframe is mentioned in the Advertisement therefore it would tantamount to changing the Rule of the game after the game has begun, which is in contradiction to the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
G. The result are in violation of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court in "Secretary. A.P. Public Service Commission vs B. Swapna and Ors (2005(4)SCC154) held as under:
"In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And Ors. v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Ors. (2001 (10) SCC 51), it was held as under:
"It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it pronounced upon the invalidity of the circular orders dated 26.6.1996, does not merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside."
In Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. (1995(6) SCC 1), it was held as under:
"34. The Selection Committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication. In P.K. Ramachandra lyer v. Union of India (1984 (2) SCC 7 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4)
141) it was observed: (SCC pp. 180-81, para 44) "By necessary inference, there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm."
35. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985(3) SCC 721) it was observed that the Selection Committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these decisions were followed in Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987(4) SCC 646) and the limitations of the Selection Committee were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate had to secure at the viva voce.
36. It may be pointed out that rule-making function under Article 309 is legislative and not executive as was laid down by this Court in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana (1980 Supp SCC 524). For this reason also, the Selection Committee or the Selection Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis for selection as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection."
H. The respondents failed to appreciate that once the applicant scored above the cut off marks after qualifying the written examination and interview, the principle of legitimate expectation is clearly attracted and she have a legitimate right of consideration for appointment. As per definition in Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition 'Legitimate Expectation" is an expectation arising from the reasonable belief that a private person or public body will adhere to a well-established practice or will keep a promise. I. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024 held as under:
"...Appointment can't be denied over Trivial and bona-fide error.... After a candidate has participated in the selection 8 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omission or errors..."
J. As per Notice F. No. 1-4/2010-P&P-I dated 17/08/2017 by the Staff Selection Committee after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Abdul Rasheed in which it was stated that the appointment of candidates would remain provisional subject to verification of his/her claim by the appointing authority and department concerned. The relevant part of the notice is stated as under:
"3. Keeping in view the difficulties faced by the candidates and the Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 3116/2017 in the matter of Union of India vs Abdul Rasheed, the commission took up the matter regarding relaxation of in the stipulated time limit (a indicated at para 1 above) with the Department of Personnel & Training. The Department of Personnel & Training in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs, endorsed the following decisions of the Commission as given below:-
(i) With effect from 23.01.2017, [i.e. the date of dismissal of SLP No. 3116/2017 filed by the Commission in the Hon'ble Supreme court of India (UOI vs Abdul Rasheed)] the Commission will not insist on candidates producing OBC Certificates issued within the cut off dates i.e. 3 years, before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the closing date of applications mentioned in the Notices.
(ii) In cases where document verification has already been completed and the final result was declared after 23.01.2017 or is yet to be declared, the candidates may furnish prima facie proof of being OBC, if already not produced, to enable the Commission to consider process their claim under the OBC category.
K. The Hon'ble High Court in WPC 15514/2023 Ravi Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences held as under:
"90. The conclusions reached by the court are thus summarised below:9
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) a. The insistence of the respondent upon the OBC-NCL certificate to have been issued between 06.11.2022 to 05.11.2023 is arbitrary and does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through the reservation of seats.
b. The requirement of an OBC-NCL certificate is fundamentally different from technical academic qualification. While the former is mere evidence of what already exists, the latter refers to the acquisition of a qualification.
c. In terms of Pushpa (supra), read with Ram Kumar Gijroya (SC). Ram Kumar Gijroya (DB), Mukesh Kumar Yadav (supra), Karn Singh Yadav (supra), the insistence by the respondent on the submission of the OBC-NCL certificate issued during the given cut-off date, is arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the object of reservation. Also, the candidature may not be cancelled solely on account of submission of the OBC- NCL certificate issued beyond the cutoff date, but within the extended time provided by the respondent. d. As per Anil Kumar (supra), the cut-off date is to be construed in a manner favourable to the candidate, and not to mullify a fundamental right merely because the OBC-NCL certificate is being submitted post the cut-off date..."
That the respondents in the said case filed an LPA No. 232/2024 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, a case against the LPA was also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India bearing SLP No. 16480/2024 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. L. The State is under an obligation to act fairly and cannot act in an arbitrary and whimsical manner by not filling up vacancies.
M. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11360- 11363/2018 Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South East Central Railways & Ors. held as under:
"...7. Our country is governed by the rule of law. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number 10 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend time to prepare for the examination. They spend time and money to travel to the place where written test is held. If they qualify the written test they have to again travel to appear for the interview and medical examination etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested right. However, the State must give some justifiable, non- arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution..."
N. The respondents failed to consider the applicant's OBC- NCL certificates dated 05/05/2022 & 12/01/2024 and erroneously shortlisted the applicant under the UR category. O. The action of the respondents is wrong, contrary, erroneous, unjust and unfair and violative of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the various latest decisions of this very Bench, some of them are:- Sushant Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No. 45/2025 pronounced on 26.05.2025 and Ashish vs. UOI in OA No. 483/2025 dated 18.07.2025; decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Sapana Saini vs. UOI & Ors. - OA No. 27/2025 dated 05.05.2025; in Praveen Kumar vs. UOI & Ors. - OA No. 19/2025 dated 08.05.2025.
In his grounds counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ravi Kumar vs. 11 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) AIIMS - W.P. (C) 15514/2023 and CM Appl. 62139/2023. The excerpts of which are as follows :-
"90. The conclusions reached by the court are thus summarised below:
a. The insistence of the respondent upon the OBC-NCL certificate to have been issued between 06.11.2022 to
05.11.2023 is arbitrary and does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through the reservation of seats.
b. The requirement of an OBC-NCL certificate is fundamentally different from a technical/academic qualification. While the former is mere evidence of what already exists, the latter refers to the acquisition of a qualification.
c. In terms of Pushpa (supra), read with Ram Kumar Gijroya (SC), Ram Kumar Gijroya (DB), Mukesh Kumar Yadav (supra), Karn Singh Yadav (supra), the Insistence by the respondent on the submission of the OBC-NCL certificate Issued during the given cut-off date, is arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the object of reservation. Also, the candidature may not be cancelled solely on account of submission of the OBC- NCL certificate issued beyond the cut off date, but within the extended time provided by the respondent. d. As per Anil Kumar (supra), the cut-off date is to be construed in a manner favourable to the candidate, and not to nullify a fundamental right merely because the OBC-NCL certificate is being submitted post the cut-off date.
e. On facts, the petitioner's OBC-NCL certificate dated 23.11.2023 ought to have been accepted by the respondent and it is directed accordingly."
5. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicant and have alleged that the advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2023/1 was published by NIC on behalf of 12 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). Further the applicant was required to submit a valid OBC (NCL) certificate in the prescribed format which was required to be in possession of the candidate on or before the crucial date and which remained valid as on the closing date of recruitment i.e., 04.04.2023. He added that during document verification it was found that the applicant had submitted two OBC (NCL) certificates dated 05.05.2022 and 12.01.2024 which were not in accordance with the prescribed validity requirements on the crucial date which made her claim invalid. According to the counsel, the certificate dated 05.05.2022 was meant for applying for the posts in State Government and the other certificate dated 12.01.2024 was issued beyond the prescribed timeline. He highlighted Clauses - 2, 4 and 7 of the advertisement which supported his arguments. He also highlighted guidelines issued by the DoPT vide OM No. 36033/4/97-Estt.(Res.) dated 25.07.2003, contents of which are reproduced below :-
"3. The appointing authority, before appointing a person seeking appointment on the basis of reservation to OBCs should verify the veracity of the community certificate submitted by the candidate and also the fact that he/she does not fall in creamy layer on the crucial date. The crucial date for this purpose may be treated as the closing date for receipt of applications for the post except in cases where crucial date is fixed otherwise."13
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) Moreover, all those candidates including the applicant who failed to submit their valid category certificates, were considered under Unreserved category within the provisional select list/reserve panel.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions; examined the pleadings and documents on record and perused the rulings cited by both the parties. It is undisputed that the applicant belongs to OBC (NCL) community as per the certificates dated 05.05.2022 and 12.01.2024. Also she has produced all the requisite documents including the OBC (NCL) certificates; however one of which was alleged to be in the State format and the other one was not treated as valid by the respondents as it was issued after the cut off date.
We are of the considered opinion that one need not be so hyper technical and theoretical in such matters. Prudence demands that one has to be pragmatic rather than just be pedantic. Substance should prevail over style. Also the cut off date for submission of OBC (NCL) certificate does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through reservation of seats.
14
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4)
7. In Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) it was categorically held that the certificate issued by a competent authority is only an affirmation of the fact which is already in existence. It is not as if that granting of such certification confers the status of OBC on a person for the first time, or that, that person did not belong to the OBC category prior to the cut-off date. It was for this reason that, insisting upon a certificate, which carries a date before cut-off date, would be arbitrary and deserves to be struck down. A similar view was taken in Tanisha Ansari's case also wherein on the calling of the respondents the candidate had arranged fresh certificates certifying caste status.
8. This matter in service jurisprudence and administrative law is now no more res integra but res judicata and well settled in the light of the judgment of Single Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ravi Kumar vs. AIIMS - W.P. (C) 15514/2023 dated 02.02.2024, which has been upheld by Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 232/2024 dated 20.03.2024 and subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.08.2024 vide SLP (C) No. 16480/2024. As per the ratio given in the judgment, the cut off date for submission of OBC (NCL) certificate does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through reservation of seats. The requirement of an OBC 15 OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4) (NCL) certificate is fundamentally different from a technical/academic qualification. While the former is mere evidence of what already exists; the latter refers to the acquisition of a qualification. Also, the cut off date is to be counted in a manner favourable to the candidate and not to nullify a fundamental right merely because the OBC (NCL) certificate is being submitted post the cut off date. This judgment has been relied upon by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Sapana Saini's case (supra) and we see no reason to differ from this decision. We thus abide by the above decision and allow this OA with the following directions:-
1. The impugned Reserve Panel dated 12/02/2025 for the post of Scientific Officer/Engineer-SB is quashed and set aside.
2. The respondents are directed to consider the OBC (NCL) certificates produced by the applicant and to re-
draw the merit list and thereafter to consider including her name in the Provisional List.
3. They are further directed to consider appointing the applicant in the post of Scientific Officer/Engineer-SB under OBC(NCL) category, as she is otherwise meritorious. 16
OA No.766/2025 & OA No. 767/2025 Item No. 21 (C-4)
4. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
Needless to mention the applicant would be entitled to all notional benefits like seniority and fixation of pay and allowances. However, there will be no payment of any arrears on the principle of 'No work for pay'.
9. We make it clear that the direction given above in this OA would be applicable upon the applicant in OA No. 767/2025 - Vinod Kumar Saini also and same benefits would flow to Vinod Kumar Saini also as has been granted to the applicant of this OA.
10. Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in the records of OA No. 767/2025.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/