Delhi High Court
Tej Pal Singh And Others vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Another on 24 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000IIAD(DELHI)428, 120(2005)DLT117, 2000(52)DRJ791
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri
ORDER A.K. Sikri, J.
1. There are 29 petitioners in this writ petition. Their grievance is common. They all belong to the category of 'Schedule Castes' (hereinafter referred to as 'SC', for short). The complaint of the petitioner is that their certificates of being 'SC' are not considered by the respondents for selection to the post of teachers including Assistant Teachers in Municipal Corporation of Delhi/New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'MCD/NDMC', for short) merely on the ground that their certificates are submitted after 30th June, 1998, the last date specified for the purpose.
2. The controversy in this case arises in the back drop of following factual matrix.
3. Respondent no. 1, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTD", for short) has constituted Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board', for short) which is respondent No. 2 in this writ petition. This Board is constituted for the purpose of recruiting people from various user departments in development, selection and recruitment procedure. The Board issued advertisement on 12th June, 1998 in newspapers for various posts of teachers including Assistant Teachers to be appointed in various MCD/NDMC schools. As per this advertisement last date of submitting complete application forms for respective post was 30th June, 1998 and the forms could be submitted at any of the centres mentioned in the advertisement. The advertisement further stipulated number of posts reserved for 'SC'/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST/OBC, for short) and stated the number of posts reserved for teachers in the 'SC' category as 790. The petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Teachers pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement under the 'SC' category. It is further stated by the petitioners that all the requisite certificates including certificate of their being 'SC' were submitted and after perusing these certificates and being satisfied therefrom Board called these petitioners for verification between 6th october, 1998 and 22nd October, 1998. Board issued call letters (Annexure P-2 colly) to the candidates for the purpose of verification stipulating therein that the documents should be brought in original and in case of SC/ST/OBC candidates the certificate must be issued by competent authority of the NCTD. The petitioners stated that copy of this certificate was already submitted to the Board and only for verification of the same with the original certificate, petitioners were called by the Board. Petitioner attended the Office of the Board for verification and checking of the original documents however, subsequently petitioner came to know that their candidate was not considered by the Board on the ground that their certificate of being 'SC' was dated after 30th June, 1998 and only those candidates whose certificates were dated prior to 30th June, 1998 were considered. Petitioners termed this action of the respondents as arbitrary and illegal and contended that the date of certificate is immaterial as what is relevant is that the petitioners belong to 'SC' category and this fact does not change whether the certificate is dated prior to 30th June, 1998 or after 30th June, 1998. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioners challenging Board's non-consideration of their candidature on the aforesaid ground.
4. I may state here that there are number of other petitions filed by other petitioners who are identically situated as the petitioners in this case and whose case are also rejected on the ground that they submitted their SC certificate issued by competent authority of NCTD only after 30th June, 1998. All these petitions were clubbed and heard together. Mr. G.B. Sewak argued on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 7360 of 1999, Dr. Surat Singh argued on behalf of petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 7384 of 1999, Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi argued on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1402 of 1999, Mr. Sanjay K. Chadha argued on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 4651 of 1999, Mr. Rajesh Tyagi argued on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1649 of 1999 and Mr. Raman Kapur argued on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 6319 of 1999.
5. Counsel for the petitioners in these writ petition reiterated their submission as contained in the writ petitions. It was also argued that all these petitioners had in fact submitted the certificates to the effect that they belong to SC/OBC category alongwith their application which was submitted before 30th June, 1998 however at that time they could not submit the certificate issued by competent authority of Government of NCTD before verification of their cases by the Board. It was also submitted that as per the Government guidelines issued on reservation and concessions for SC and ST candidates, the petitioners were entitled to submit such certificates even after the cut off date i.e. 30th June, 1998. It was further argued that even in terms of advertisement, the cut-off date of 30th June, 1998 was fixed for the purpose of educational qualification, professional experience and age limit and it did not apply to production of SC certificate being issued by competent authority of Government of NCTD. It was also submitted that all these petitioners in fact belong to SC for which they were having certificate issued by other State Governments. Only aspect lacking was that they were not having certificate issued by Government of NCTD. Before issuing a certificate, Government has only to verify that the particular person is residents of Delhi for the last three years. Therefore, when the petitioners applied for issuance of such certificate by government of NCTD, what was required was the verification about the residence of the petitioner in Delhi and the particular caste to which petitioners belong is SC in Delhi State. Once this verification is done and certificate issued it is declaration of the fact that petitioners belong to SC category which existed even before 30th June, 1998 and only affirmed by issuance of this certificate. Without prejudice to this contention it was further argued that the insistence of certificate being issued by Government of NCTD was clearly discriminatory as the certificate issued by other State Government was also verified. Moreover, Board was not insisting on this certificate while making appointment of Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors. Number of judgments were cited by the petitioners in support of their contention viz. Charles K. Sakaria and Others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and Others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1320 Anshu Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi reported in 1998 (5) Apex Decisions 912, G.P. Sudha Haru Pel and Elvin Peter P.J. Vs. Balu Vershese and the case of Deepak Vs. Competent Authority for the purpose of Admission to Engineering Course in Government Engineering College, Pune .
6. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit. It is stated therein that on 11th June, 1998 Board had advertised 3500 posts of primary teachers/assistant teachers mentioning the educational and professional qualifications required for these posts. Persuant to this advertisement Board received around 1.15 lakh applications. Subsequently, another advertisement was issued on 11th September, 1998 whereby criteria for selection of candidates, short listing, checking of original documents and placing them in the zone for consideration on the weighted score awarded to each candidate on the basis of marks provided by the Board was stated in detail. It further stated that the last date for applying for the post in question as per advertisement dated 11th June, 1998 was 30th June, 1998 by which date applications complete in all respects and accompanied with copies of documents showing necessary, educational qualification, professional experience, age limit alongwith SC/ST/OBC certificate, if any, issued by the competent authority of the NCTD be submitted. It is stated that since last date for submission of the applications including copy of SC/ST/OBC certificate was 30th June, 1998 it follows that the certificate which was to be submitted had to be of a date prior to 30th June, 1998 and therefore cut off date of 30th June, 1998 adopted by the Board for administrative purposes and also made applicable uniformly was valid and therefore there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that since 1.15 lakhs applications were received no close scrutiny of all the applications alongwith documents attached to it, submitted by the candidates was made and in any case the advertisement dated 21st September, 1998 very clearly stipulated that merely because a candidate was called for verification/checking of the original documents does not give such candidate any assurance of selection. Clause 7 of the advertisement reads as under :-
"The mere fact that you have been called for the Verification/checking of the original documents on your being placed on the "zone of consideration" does not give an assurance of selection. The final selection will be based upon your position and placement in the final merit list to be prepared as per the notified vacancies."
7. On the basis of aforesaid averments it is stated that no legal right, much less any enforceable right had accrued in favour of the petitioners and therefore this petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.
8. Elaborating this argument Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India as well as Mr. Raman Duggal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - Board submitted that cut-off date had to be fixed in this case by which candidates were supposed to apply. The said date fixed was 30th June, 1998 and all the candidates were to make applications for respective posts alongwith necessary documents and certificates before this date including SC certificate issued by Government of NCTD only.
9. It was further submitted that if the indulgence is given to these petitioners it will lead to inequitous results inasmuch as many persons would not have applied as they could not get the SC certificate issued by competent authority from Government of NCTD by stipulated date and therefore must have presumed that they are not eligible to apply. Further it was stated that many persons whose cases are rejected as that of the petitioners may not have approached the Court by filing writ petition therefore the benefit should not be given to the petitioners and even if it is ultimately accepted and declared by this Court that SC candidates could furnish such certificates after 30th June, 1998 and that their cases cannot be rejected on this ground, this declaration should be prospective otherwise it would give undue advantage to these petitioners and at the same time deny this advantage to those who did not apply or those whose cases were rejected and who did not approach the Court. It was also argued that petitioners were estopped from coming to this Court as they made application in terms of advertisement issued, participated in the selection process on such terms and that after having participated in the selection process they were estopped from challenging the terms contained in the advertisement.
10. I have considered the respective submissions of both the parties. The question for determination in this case is as to whether the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teachers in the category reserved for 'SC' be denied on the ground that the certificate of 'SC' issued by competent authority from Government of NCTD and submitted by the petitioners is of a date after 30th June, 1998.
11. There is no dispute about the fact that all the petitioners belong to 'SC' category. It is also not in dispute that all these petitioners had submitted applications in prescribed form before 30th June, 1998 alongwith all requisite documents including SC certificate. But this SC certificate was one issued by other State Government and not by NCTD. They could get SC certificate issued by NCTD after 30th June, 1998 and submitted the same as and when it was received by them. This certificate was submitted before they were called for verification of their documents by Board.
12. Let me first deal with the case in terms of advertisement issued by the Board itself as well as guidelines/instructions issued by the Government of NCTD from time to time on reservation and concession for SC/ST candidates. Mr. Raman Duggal, learned counsel for the petition in this writ petition referred to Chapter 2 of "Swamy's Compilation on Reservations and Concessions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This Chapter has the following heading "Verification of claim for SC and ST". Para 1 of this Chapter gives the definition of SC and ST and inter alia stipulates that a person shall be held to be a member of SC or ST, as the case may be, if he belongs to a caste or a tribe which is declared, under any of the orders mentioned in that para to be a SC or ST for the area of which he/she is a resident. As already noticed above, petitioners belong to SC as per the declaration given by the Constitution (SC) (U.T.) Order, 1951. Para 2 of this Chapter states that if any person claims that he belong to SC/ST category he has to produce a certificate to the appointing authority as sufficient proof in support of the claim so as to make him eligible for various relaxations and concessions. Paras 3 and 4 are material for our purpose and are quoted below :-
3. Provisional appointment subject to verification.
Even where the prescribed certificates have been produced, the appointing authorities should include a clause in the offer of appointment as follows :-
"The appointment is provisional and is subject to the caste/tribe certificates being verified through the proper channels and if the verification reveals that the claim to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, is false, the services will be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons and without prejudice to such further action as may be taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for production of false certificates."
4. Provisional appointment when prescribed certificates not produced.
Where a candidate belonging to an S.C. or S.T. is unable to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he may be appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima facie proof he is able to produce in support of this claim, subject to his furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time. If there is genuine difficulty in his obtaining a certificate, the appointing authority should itself verify his claim through the District Magistrate concerned. Appointment of an S.C. or S.T. candidate should not be withheld/delayed pending verification of caste status.
13. Thus as per the aforesaid provisions when the certificate is produced it is subject to the verification so that the authorities concerned are satisfied about the genuineness of the certificate and the fact that candidate belong to SC/ST category. Moreover even if no certificate is produced the appointment is to be given to SC or ST candidate provisionally on the basis of whatever prima facie proof he is able to produce in support of his claim subject to furnishing the prescribed certificate within reasonable period. Not only this it is further prescribed that if the candidate is feeling genuine difficulty in obtaining certificate, the authority should itself verify his claim through the Magistrate concerned and appointment of SC/ST candidates should not be withheld/delayed pending such verification of caste status. To my mind, these instructions which prescribe the procedure as to how and when certificate is to be or can be produced, clinch the issue in this case. It prescribes, in no uncertain terms that a person who claims to belong to SC/ST category is not to be denied appointment merely because he has not been able to produce the certificate. On the contrary, even after the provisional appointment he is unable to produce the certificate because of genuine difficulty, obligation is cast upon the authorities to verify his claim. In this case admittedly all the petitioners produced the certificate before 30th June, 1998 to the effect that they belong to SC category. However, these certificates were issued by other State Governments and not by Government of NCTD. Thus along with their application they submitted prima facie proof in support of their claim that they belong to SC category. Not only this they could even produce the certificate from competent authority of government of NCTD also much before the verification of the original certificates by the Board. Thus the appointment could not have been denied to the petitioners merely because the certificate issued by the competent authority of government of NCTD are dated after 30th June, 1998.
14. This view taken by me stands confirmed even by the advertisement issued by the respondent Board itself. It seems that respondent Board was conscious of the aforesaid government guidelines. It is because of this reason that in the advertisement although 30th June, 1998 is stated as cutoff date to adjudge the eligibility qua educational qualification, professional experience and age limit, this date is not specified for the purpose of furnishing SC and OBC certificates. It is clear from the following insertion made in the advertisement about the eligibility of the candidates :-
ELIGIBILITY :
(a) The eligibility of candidates will be determined by their Educational Qualification, Professional experience and Age limit etc., as on 30.6.98.
(b) SC and OBC candidates must furnish certificate issued by the competent authority of Govt. of NCT of Delhi only.
(c) Applicant's Registration in Employment Exchange of National Capital Territory of Delhi is desirable.
15. Relying upon the aforesaid provision in the advertisement, Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in one of the petitions argued that while eligibility of candidates as per sub-para (a), is to be taken according to their educational qualifications, professional experience and age limit as on 30th June, 1998, but as per sub-para (b) SC and OBC candidates are to furnish certificate issued by competent authority of Government of NCTD, no such date is mentioned. Mentioning of the date of 30th June, 1998 in sub-para (b) and non-mentioning of this date in sub-para (b) is a significant omission with a purpose, namely, to enable the SC and OBC candidates to furnish certificates issued by the competent authority of government of NCTD even after 30th June, 1998 and this is in consonance with the guidelines of the government.
16. Thus it can be concluded that as per the government's own guidelines as well as respondent's own advertisement, petitioners were entitled to submit the SC certificate issued by competent authority of government of NCTD after 30th June, 1998 and these certificates were submitted by the petitioners within reasonable time. It was not appropriate for the respondents to reject the candidature of these petitioners on the ground that the certificates are dated after 30th June, 1998.
17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.
18. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.
19. One can usefully draw sustenance from the following words of wisdom spoken by the Apex Court in Valsamma Paul (Mrs.) Vs. Cochin University and others :-
"The Constitution through its Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles created a Secular State based on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, striking a balance between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian social order. The emphasis, therefore, is on a citizen to improve excellence and equal status and dignity of person with the advancement of human rights and constitutional philosophy of social and economic democracy in a democratic polity to all the citizens on equal footing....."
20. For this reason Government has itself come out with the aforesaid guidelines permitting the candidates to submit proof that they belong to SC category, by furnishing the certificate issued by competent authority within reasonable time even if it is not submitted at the time of making the application for the job.
21. Admittedly, cut-off date of 30th June, 1998 for the purpose of submitting SC/OBC certificate was not mentioned in the advertisement. The only reason given by the respondents in the counter affidavit for fixing cut-off date as 30th June, 1998 is that since that was the last date for submission of application for various posts, it necessarily follows that the certificate to be produced by the petitioners should also have been issued, before this date. The advertisement does not support the contention of the respondent. As already noticed above although cut-off date is fixed for issuing eligibility qua professional experience, educational qualifications, date of birth, etc. no such cut-off date is fixed for the purpose of submission of SC certificate. Moreover, even when this certificate was submitted later, the applications of the petitioners was still considered and they were short listed. Thus the Board initially acted on the basis that such certificate could be submitted after 30th June, 1998 and before the verification of original certificates/documents. It is later only that these cases were rejected. In the case of Deepak Vs. Competent Authority for the purpose of Admission to Engineering Course in Government Engineering College, Pune Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that requirement that caste verification certificate must accompany application form should not be insisted upon and it cannot be made pre-condition for accepting the application forms and considering the claim of the candidates in a particular reserved category. Bombay High Court further observed as under:-
We again make it clear that the applications, accompanied by the caste certificate issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, should be held to be sufficient for considering the claim of a candidate in a particular/reserved category. The admission so granted will be provisional, subject to the result of the Scrutiny Committee. If the caste claim is held to be illegal and the caste certificate is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee finally, then the admission will also stand cancelled.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that the cut-off date was uniformly fixed as a policy decision and such a policy decision should not be interfered by the Court. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers Associations and Others Vs. Indian Railway Service Association and Another reported in (1993) Supp. (4) SCC 473. He also stated that the respondents could fix cut-off date and relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of University of Cochin Vs. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and Others reported in (1997) & SCC 418 and in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others .
23. It is no doubt that policy decision of the governments/administration normally should not be interfered with by the courts. In the instant case it has already been held by me above that cut-off date of 30th June, 1998 was not fixed for the purpose of submission of SC certificate. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers Association and others (supra) will therefore have no application to the facts of this case. Moreover it can be disputed as to whether there is any "policy" involved in fixing the date of 30th June, 1998 for submission of the `SC' certificate.
24. Insofar as other two judgments relied upon by the respondents namely, University of Cochin Vs. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others (supra) and the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) are concerned, these judgments also are of no help to determine the question involved in this petition. First was the case where relevant rule provided for determination of maximum age of applicants with reference to 1st June, which was the last date fixed for receipt of application. The Supreme Court held that fixing of cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a particular post would not per se, be arbitrary. It was a case where person would be considered eligible, by being within the maximum age before the cut-off date and would become ineligible after the cut-off date as he would cross the maximum age limit prescribed under the rule.
25. Likewise in the case of University of Cochin Vs. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and Others (supra) before the Supreme Court, the cut-off date was fixed with reference to acquisition of qualification and it was submitted that a person should acquire the qualification required for that post by the specified date. Fixing of such a cut-off date was held to be permissible. In fact it is for this reason that in the advertisement issued by the respondents also cut-off date of 30th June, 1998 is fixed as cut-off date for determining the eligibility of candidates recording their educational qualification, professional experience and age limit and fixing of such a cut-off date is clearly permissible in the aforesaid judgment. Ratio of this judgment cannot be extended to fixing cut-off date for the purpose of submission of SC and OBC certificates. Nor is it done by the respondent themselves.
26. For the same reasons, neither the argument of estoppel as advanced by the respondents nor the arguments that allowing the petitioners to submit such certificate after 30th June, 1998 would amount to relaxation in the conditions prescribed in the advertisement, would be tenable as these arguments are on the premise that this certificate was to be necessarily submitted before 30th June, 1998 which is factually incorrect.
27. It may further be noted that the competent authority i.e. SDM, Government of NCT of Delhi issues two kinds of caste certificates (i) a fresh certificate of SC/ST for persons originally resident in Delhi and (ii) certificate in case of SC/ST person who have been born in Delhi and whose father's caste certificate was issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi or its predecessor government/administration. The second kind of caste certificate is issued to a SC/ST person whose family has migrated to Delhi from another State of whose father has been transferred to Delhi in the course of his employment or who has himself been transferred to Delhi during the course of his own employment or who has been marked to a person employed in Delhi or to a person whose family is an ordinary resident of Delhi. Such persons who are seeking the second kind of caste certificate have to make an application in the prescribed form and also have to fulfill the various requirements while submitting the application form. Once the duly completed application in the prescribed form along with all supporting documents are submitted in the office of the competent authority of Government of NCTD, it issues the said caste validity certificate after a period of 21 days from the date of submission and usually before the expiry of 40 days from the date of submission of the application.
28. This caste certificate issued by Government of NCT of Delhi is issued on the basis of the earlier caste certificate issued to the SC/ST persons by the competent authority in his/her state of birth and the entire details (i.e date, caste, designation of the competent authority of the State of birth of the candidate etc. of the original caste certificate (issued by the competent authority of the State of birth of the candidate) are clearly mentioned in this caste ertificate issued by the Competent Authority Government of NCTD.
29. The said caste certificate issued by Government of NCTD further certifies that the SC/ST person to whom the certificate is being issued is a resident of Delhi for particular no of years (at least three years) or from the particular date (which must be more than three years prior to the date of application for the caste validity certificate) mentioned in the said certificate. Thus, the said certificate is in fact issued on the twin basis of the original caste certificate (issued by the competent authority of the State of birth of the candidate) and the condition of residence of the candidate in Delhi for atleast three years.
30. For this reason also the stand of the Board insisting upon the submission of SC certificate by so called cut-off date i.e. 30th June, 1998 does not seem to be correct.
31. There is also no force in the submission of the respondent that the judgment should be given prospective operation and should not apply in the instant case as many may not have genuinely applied for want of certificate issued in their favour before 30th June, 1998 and those whose cases have been rejected may not have approached this Court. It is not stipulated in the advertisement itself that the certificate issued by Delhi Government is to be submitted by 30th June, 1998, still, if some persons may not have applied under the wrong impression that such certificate was required to be submitted alongwith application before 30th June, 1998, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer merely because some other person may have committed mistake in this respect. Similarly it is no ground to reject the cases of the petitioners or deny them relief merely because some other person whose cases are also rejected have not approached this Court. If it found that wrong has been done to the petitioners and petitioners have approached the Court for redressal of their grievance, relief cannot be denied to the petitioners on the ground that other similarly situated persons have not approached the Court.
32. There is another reason because of which the present petition warrants to be allowed. Admittedly, many posts in the SC category are still lying vacant viz. out of 799 posts applied only 438 persons belonging to SC category were selected and remaining posts are lying vacant, as sufficient number of persons belonging to SC category did not apply for the concerned post. These vacancies which are still available have to be filled up from amongst Sc candidates as they are reserved for them. If these vacancies are available and petitioners are eligible to apply for these posts pursuant to the advertisement by stipulated date, there is no reason not to consider them. If the petitioners are not considered the only other alternative left with the respondents is to advertise for these remaining posts and invite fresh application from candidates belonging to SC category. Instead of resorting to this procedure it would be better to fill up the balanced vacant posts from amongst the petitioners who applied for these posts well in time and are duly considered as well.
33. However, I do not agree with the submission of the petitioners that the action of the respondent in insisting upon the SC certificate from competent authority of the Government of NCTD is bad in law. This aspect is covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3926 of 1998 decided on 14th July, 1999, relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Union of India and another .
34. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1998 of 1998 entitled Anshu Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others (per K. Ramamoorthy, J.) dated 27th July, 1998 to contend that cut-off date fixed by the respondents in the said case was upheld by this court. A perusal of the judgment shows that in that case Municipal Corporation of Delhi had fixed cut-off date of 31st July, 1996 for applying 'Other Backward Class' certificate by the applicants. Para 9 of the said judgment is reproduced below :
"The argument of Mr. Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD about the attack on the policy has considerable force. The petitioner has not explained as to why she had not applied before the 31st July, 1996. If she had applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the 31st July, 1996 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had expressed any difficulty, the situation would be entirely different. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner cannot claim that, when the first respondent had considered the cases of applicants who had sent OBC certificates on or before the 31st of July, 1997, the case of the petitioner also should have been considered.
35. Thus the petitioners in the said case was required to apply to SDM before 31st July, 1996 to get the OBC certificate. It was not a case where certificate was to be submitted by a particular date. In this case there is no stipulation that the certificate was to be applied by a particular date. It may further be noted that OBC status of the candidate could be validly recognised only after the issuance of the certificate. This case is distinguishable on facts.
36. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the following order passed by single Judge of this Court on 13th September, 1999 entitled Shri Vijay Singh Vs. Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board being Civil Writ Petition No. 1568 of 1999 :-
Heard.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for relief that the respondent be directed to appoint the petitioners to the posts opted by them.
Admittedly, advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Teachers appeared in the newspaper dated 11.6.1998. The petitioners applied for O.B.C. certificates from the Government of NCT of Delhi on 24.6.1998. The petitioners along with the certificate of O.B.C. were required to submit the applications for the posts advertised on or before 30.6.1999. The petitioners admittedly got certificate of O.B.C. from the Government of NCT of Delhi on 7.10.1998.
Admittedly the petitioners did not have the certificate of O.B.C. on 30.6.1998. Fixing of cut of date as provided in the advertisement of 11.6.1998 cannot be questioned.
I do not find any substance in this petition. Petition is rejected.
37. In this case the Hon'ble Judge presumed that as per advertisement OBC certificate was to be submitted on or before 30th June, 1998 which is not factually corrguishable ect as noticed above. Moreover, by this order the writ petition was dismissed in limine without giving notice to the respondents and without any detailed discussion. This order cannot be of any help to the respondents.
38. For the reasons stated above, I allow this petition. Rule is made absolute. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for the post of Assistant teachers and if found suitable to appoint them to the said post. This exercise be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.
39. No order as to costs.