Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anand Kumar Yadav vs Housing And Urban Affairs on 11 February, 2025
1
Item No.87 (C-4) O.A No. 2424/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2424/2023 With M.A No. 2826/2023,
M.A No. 2827/2023 and M.A No. 318/2025
Reserved on : 20.01.2025
Pronounced on : 11.02.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
ANAND KUMAR YADAV
S/o Ram Achal Yadav
R/o Saudpur Leduwa,
Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-224143 ....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal)
Versus
1. MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
Through Secretary
Nirman Bhawan, C-Wing,
Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi, 110011
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Through Chairman,
Vikas Sadan,
Near INA Market
New Delhi-110023 ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee)
2 OA No.2424/2023
Item 87 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant Mr. Anand Kumar Yadav under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs :-
"8. A. Direct the Respondents to admit the caste documents produced by the Applicant for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Post Code: 02) in reference to Advertisement No.03/2022/Rectt. Cell/Pers./DDA and confirm the appointment of the Applicant under the Reserved (OBC) category as Final; and or B. Pass any such other order or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that in pursuance to the advertisement for filling up various posts including the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Post Code :
02, the applicant who belongs to 'Ahir' community applied for the said post under OBC category. The applicant appeared in the Computer Based Test (CBT) held on 28.03.2023, 29.03.2023 & 01.04.2023 and was declared successful on 20.05.2023. Being shortlisted under OBC category as 'provisionally eligible', he was called for document verification on 19.06.2023. He produced all the relevant documents in respect of his qualification, income and caste to show that he has been eligible for the said post. However, the respondent no. 2 refused to accept the applicant's caste certificates [OBC - Non Creamy Layer (NCL)] dated 19.5.2021 & 05.06.2023. Aggrieved, he preferred a representation dated 19.07.2023. However, vide 3 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) notice dated 25.07.2023, the candidature of the applicant was withheld owing to certain deficiency which he was asked to cure within 07 days from the date of issue of the said notice. Pursuant to which, the applicant produced the following documents/certificates :-
'(i) OBC (NCL) Certificate dt. 19.05.2021 (in prescribed format)
(ii) OBC (NCL) Certificate dt. 05.06.2023 (in prescribed format)
(iii) Letter/certificate dt.26.07.2023 certifying Applicant's OBC (Non-
Creamy Layer) status for FY 2021-22, FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 issued by the Competent Authority
(iv) Income Proof Certificate dt. 17.08.2020 (valid for 3 years)
(v) Income Proof Certificate dt. 23.07.2022 (valid for 3 years)
(vi) Copy of Representation dt. 14.07.2023 issued by Applicant to the Respondent No.2.' In one of the aforesaid certificates dated 26.07.2023 issued by the competent authority, it was clarified that though the applicant belongs to 'Ahir' Community he does not fall under the 'Creamy Layer' for either Financial Years 2021-22 or F.Y. 2022-23 or F.Y. 2023-24. Thus, he is eligible under OBC category for appointment. Learned counsel for the applicant averred that in spite of the clear cut clarification/instructions, the respondent no. 2 was not willing to accept the applicant's OBC (NCL) certificate dated 19.05.2021 & 05.06.2023. Hence, the present OA.
3. Learned counsel of the applicant based his arguments on the following grounds :-
4 OA No.2424/2023
Item 87 (C-4) '(i) From bare perusal of facts and documentary evidences in the present case, it is abundantly clear that Applicant's candidature is undisputedly eligible for appointment under the reserved (OBC) category and the unavailability of the OBC (non-creamy layer) certificate in the prescribed format to have been issued between the period of 10.07.2021 to 10.07.2022 is a mere deficiency and cannot be considered in any way as Applicant's in-eligibility for appointment to the said Post under Reserved (OBC) category. The said Deficiency is sufficiently cured by the Certificate/letter dt. 26.07.2023 issued by Competent Authority certifying Applicant's OBC (non-creamy layer) status for F.Y. 2021-22, F.Y. 2022-23 and F.Y. 2023-24.
(ii) The respondent No.2 has failed to comply with the express directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal passed in OA No. 1988/2023 dated 12.07.2023 wherein in an identical facts of the present case, the Respondent No.2 was directed to consider admitting the certificates (OBC-NCL. Certificate procure after 18.02.2023) on provisional basis.
(iii) The respondent No. 2 has further failed to abide by the instructions reiterated by the DoP&T vide OM dt. 08.10.2015 wherein, DoP&T has directed that where a candidate belonging to OBC 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 the said candidate is able to produce in support of his/her claim subject to his/her furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time. The relevant portion of the said OM. No. 36011/1/2012-Estt. (Res) dt. 18.10.2015 is reproduced as follows:
5 OA No.2424/2023
Item 87 (C-4) "Subject: Reiteration of the instructions on verification of claims of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes for purpose of appointment to posts/services.
The undersigned is directed to say that as per extant instructions where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC). Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) 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..."
(iii) On conjoint reading of OBC (NCL) Certificate dt. 19.05.2021 & 05.06.2023 (in prescribed format) Income proof certificate dt.
17.08.2020 & 23.07.2022 (valid for 3 years), it is clear that applicant eligible for availing benefit of OBC (non-creamy layer) category in the prescribed period of 10.07.2021 to 10.07.2022 for DDA Recruitment 2022. Furthermore, the Certificate/letter dt. 26.07.2023 issued by Competent Authority certifying Applicant's OBC (non-creamy layer) status for F.Y. 2021-22, F.Y. 2022-23 and F.Y. 2023-24 undisputedly establishes the social status of the Applicant protected under OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category and therefore, the Respondent No.2 is liable to consider Applicant's selection for appointment to the said post and treat it as final.
(iv) The Respondent No.2's insistence on production of OBC-NCL Certificate in prescribed format issued between 10.07.2021 to 10.07.2022 is unjust and illegal, especially in view of the fact, that the Applicant has duly produced letter/certificate issued by the Competent 6 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) Authority certifying its OBC-NCL status for the said period (F.Y. 2021-
22) by the Applicant.
(v) In view of the fact, that the entire country was under lockdown till 28.02.2022, the Applicant along with other candidates who had applied for said post till 10.07.2022, practically had only 4 months (01.03.2022 to 10.07.2022) to procure procurement of OBC (non-creamy layer) certificate in the prescribed format. While the 'degree' holder candidates who had applied for the same post vide JE Re-opening notice dt. Feb, 2023 had available more than 9 months for procuring the same document. The Respondent No.2's bar on the candidate who had applied earlier on basis of their 'diploma' from re-applying for the same Post as 'Degree' Holder, has resulted in illegal and unjust discrimination between the candidates for the same post and violated Applicant's rights.
(vi) The Respondent No.2 failed to take into account that the entire country was still reeling under the unprecedented effects of Covid-19 much after lockdown was lifted on 01.03.2022 with much precautions and thereby the cut off date of 10.07.2022 for procuring the said caste documents in the prescribed format just 4 months after lifting of lockdown, is unjust and unreasonable.
(vii) The prescribed time-period of 1 year by Respondent No.2 preceding the cut-off date for prescribed caste certificates, is unjust and unreasonable, as opposed to the ordinary acceptable time period of 3 years in many Central Government vacancies, for instance, vacancies 7 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) by Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The said time-period of 3 years for acceptance of Caste Certificate in prescribed format is in line with the fact that the said caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority on the basis of caste proof and income proof of the Applicant, is valid for 3 years, as also evident from the conjoint reading of OBC (NCL) certificate and income proof certificate in the present case.
4. To buttress his claim, learned counsel placed reliance on the order dated 28.03.2019 of this Tribunal in OA No.2986/2016 in the matter of Anjana vs. GNCTD & Ors., which has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide W.P.(C) No. 9856/2019 as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP(C) No. 15949/2022. In the said OA 2986/2016, this Tribunal while dealing with a similar issue wherein, the applicant who had duly qualified the examination was aggrieved by the refusal of Respondent Authorities to admit her OBC- Delhi Certificate dated 10.03.2016 in the prescribed format issued after the cut-off date 20.03.2013, allowed the OA and directed the GNCTD to apropos issuance of order of appointment, treating the present respondent as an OBC candidate, in accordance with the position of merit obtained by her in the written test. The relevant extract of which is reproduced hereunder :-
"11. Once it emerges that the applicant secured the appropriate rank in the written test, and she has satisfied the authorities about her social status, the next step is to consider her case for appointment, duly treating the selection as final.
12. We, therefore, allow the OA and direct the respondents to take further steps in the direction of issuing order of appointment, duly treating her as an OBC candidate, and in 8 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) accordance with the merit obtained by her in the written test, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Reliance has also been placed on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 9856/2019 dated 10.05.2022 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld and confirmed the said order dated 28.03.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2986/2016, Anjana (Supra). Further reliance is also placed on the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 15949/2022 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the said Judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The relevant portion of said Judgment dated 10.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is reproduced as follows:
"5. However, despite the production of the latter OBC Certificate of 10.03.2016, she was not granted employment. The first OBC certificate was issued on the basis of her father hailing from Uttar Pradesh and belonging to the Lodhi OBC category. Between the issuance of the first and the second OBC certificates, the community to which he belonged remained unaltered, indeed subsists.... Her status as a member of the Lodhi Community, which forms a part of Other Backward Class, remains unaltered. This community is recognised as OBC as per GNCTD notification of 20.01.1995. Therefore, issuance of OBC certificate to her is justified. In terms of a subsequent Memorandum dated 13.01.2017 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board ("DSSSB"), the petitioner was granted a last and final opportunity to produce the OBC certificate which she did produce and submitted to DSSSB within the time specified.
6. The petitioner states that in view of two OBC certificates, the dispute arose as to which one will be valid. There is no dispute here. It is only the petitioners' indecision to accept the relevant document. The latter OBC certificate of the successful candidate meets all requirements of the recruitment notice. It should have been accepted. An administrative approval/decision should have been taken instead of bringing the case to this court. The court is of the 9 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) view, that whichever way it is seen, the respondent continues to belong to the OBC category. In the first certificate, her recognition in the OBC category was on the basis of her father hailing from Uttar Pradesh whereas in the second certificate, it was on the basis of her being born and raised in Delhi but the status of her father belonging to the OBC Lodhi class remains constant and intact. Therefore, she is rightly certified in the "OBC" category.
During the course of hearing, a case law compilation containing various landmark rulings of different Courts have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the applicant which are enlisted below :-
'1. Pushpa vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. C.M. No. 17504/2008 in W.P (C) No. 9112/2008 dated 11.02.2009 ;
2. Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. DSSSB in Civil Appeal No. 1691/2016 dated 24.02.2016 ;
3. Ravi Kumar vs. All India Institute of Medical Science W.P. (C) No. 15514/2023 & CM No. 62139/2023 dated 02.02.2024
4. Ravi Kumar vs. All India Institute of Medical Science LPA No. 232/2024 & CM Appl. No. 17356/2024 & CM Application No. 17358/2024 dated 20.03.2024 ;
5. Ravi Kumar vs. All India Institute of Medical Science upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 16480/2024 dated 02.08.2024 ;
6. Union of India vs. Abdul Rasheed in W.A No. 655/2016 in WP (C) No. 39210/2015 upheld by Supreme Court in SLP No. 3116/2017 and 10 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4)
7. Indian Institute of Science Education and Research & Ors. vs. Dr. Smitha V. S. -WA No. 2029 of 2018.' Learned counsel for the applicant also took the plea of lockdown lockdown due to the second wave of the covid-19 pandemic because of which most places like government offices were either not working or were working with less strength. As such the OBC certificate could be obtained by him with some delay. The applicant has approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to accept his OBC (NCL) certificate, though the same has been issued after the cut off date.
5. However, the learned counsel of the respondents opposed the above arguments of the counsel of the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the OA. As per their reply on record the prescribed crucial date for determining the eligibility of the candidates was 10.07.2021 and further the candidates seeking benefit of any category including OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) were required to ensure that they are entitled to such reservation/relaxation as per eligibility and they must be in possession of these certificates by the closing date of receipt of online application i.e., 18.02.2023. According to him, 220 posts were advertised and it is not denied that the applicant was qualified. It is only after document verification that it could came into the knowledge of the respondents that the OBC (NCL) certificates dated 19.05.2021 and 05.06.2023 produced by the applicant were issued after the cut off date.
11 OA No.2424/2023Item 87 (C-4) It is further stated that the applicant failed to produce the certificate in question even after the extension of crucial date from 11.07.2022 to 18.02.2023, and the same was produced after the cut off date that too the same was not in the prescribed format. Moreover, majority of candidates have already produced the OBC (NCL) Certificate within prescribed time and in a prescribed format. Further, the deficiency of Non-Creamy Layer Certificate cannot be fulfilled with Income Certificate. To support his argument learned counsel relied upon the DoPT OM No. 36033/4/97-Estt.(Res.) dated 25.07.2003 on the subject 'Validity period of OBC certificate and verification of community and 'non-creamy layer' status of OBC candidates.' Para 3 of the said OM is reproduced below :-
"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......."
6. Various rulings have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents to fortify his arguments which are extracted hereunder :-
'(i) In K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. & Anr. Appeal (Civil) No. 1313 of 2008 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15th February, 2008, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 'there may have been other aspirants who could have obtained the certificates later, but were dissuaded from applying of account of the stipulation because they were 12 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) not aware and could not have anticipated that the department would relax the condition of the certificate being in existence beforehand. These persons cannot be taken by surprise by retrospectively changing the rules after they have been deprived of the opportunity to apply.'
(ii) In Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Pooja Devi W. P(C) No. 11504/2023 dated 31.10.2023, it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court as under :-
"2.The respondent / candidate had applied for appointment to the post of TGT (Punjabi- Female) in the Schools of Government of NCT of Delhi. Though, she had cleared the requisite examination, her candidature was rejected by the petitioners on the ground that she did not have the essential educational qualifications as provided in the vacancy notification published by the petitioners. As a result, the Deficiency Memo dated October 31, 2019 and the Office Order dated August 19, 2020, were issued by the petitioners, cancelling the candidature of the respondent.
13. It is also her submission that the position of law that having a Post Graduation degree in a concerned subject will not subsume the requirement of having the Graduation in the concerned subject is no more res integra and has undergone a sea change. As per her, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held that where the Rules and the advertisement provide 'essential qualifications, the same cannot be read to mean 'minimum qualification". In other words, the higher qualification does not pre-suppose the acquisition of lower qualification. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Kavinder and others, (2021) 11 SCC 353, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the equivalence of the qualification has to be decided by a competent authority. She has also relied upon the latest judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in GNCTD and Ors. v. Seema Kumari, W.P.(C) 8945/2023, decided on August 08, 2023, to submit that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court.
25. We have already reproduced the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal while allowing the O.A. In order to arrive at any decision in this writ petition, it has to be seen, whether 13 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) possessing Master's degree in Punjabi by the petitioner, would conform to the essential educational qualifications as stipulated in the advertisement based on RRs. That apart, it is also to be seen, whether the fact of respondent having studied Punjabi as elective subject for two years, after her Graduation, would also meet the requirement of possessing the essential educational qualification."
7. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ravi Kumar vs. AIIMS in WP (C) No. 15514/2023 dated 02.02.2024. For clarity the relevant extracts are reproduced below :-
"65. A conspectus of the aforementioned decisions would show that the need for exclusion of the creamy layer from the eligibility criterion for OBC reservation had arisen to bring a factual equality amongst the OBCs, rather than a superficial categorisation based solely on the caste. The decision in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) recognises the fact that amongst the OBCs, there exists an opulent class which does not require any form of affirmative action. The underlying idea is to uplift a class and not just the selected individuals within a class.
66. Axiomatically, the OBC-NCL certificate is issued by the competent authority on the basis of the income of the applicant in the preceding three financial years and is valid for a particular financial year. Therefore, undisputedly, the OBC-NCL certificate is substantially correlated with a financial year rather than a random timeframe. As a natural corollary, an authority asking for the OBC-NCL certificate should reasonably keep the cut-off date of issuance in line with a particular financial year. A deviation from the said position not only creates confusion and uncertainty but, at times, also deprives deserving candidates of the benefit of reservations. In the present case as well, it is the admitted position that the respondent was not obliged to follow a particular timeframe and thus, it went on to adopt its own timeframe, without any intelligible basis.
67. In fact, the mechanism for availing the benefit of reservation, which undeniably caters to the socially and educationally backward classes, should not only be easy and logical, but also non-cumbersome. If the process itself becomes an obstacle, it operates as an affront on the constitutional goal of ensuring equality of opportunity. The basic feature of equality operates in a layered manner and 14 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) the understanding of equality is still evolving. The concepts of direct and indirect discrimination, substantial and non- substantial equality etc. are increasingly finding place in the judicial discourse. The concept of reservations is not secluded from the layers of inequality and is, in fact, placed at the heart of the equality discourse. For the longest time, this concept was understood as antithetical to the concept of equality of opportunity. It took us long, as a society, to accept the fact that the reservation policy is itself a dimension of the concept of equality of opportunity and is not antithetical to it. The issues with respect to implementation of the policy have emerged time and again. However, such issues, like the present one, are to be resolved keeping in view the ultimate goal of securing substantial equality.
84. The reliance on Bedanga Talukdar (supra) is equally fallacious. The case was related to the non-submission of a PwBD certificate and the case did not have any discussion either relating to the OBC reservation or about the constitutional scheme of reservations in general. Next, the respondent's reliance on Mahendra Singh (supra) is also untenable. As paragraph no. 9 of the said case reveals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the effect of violating a condition provided in the advertisement therein that the application had to be in the language for which the candidate wanted to attempt the question paper. Needless to state, the said case has absolutely no relevance to the facts of the present case.
87. The case of Gaurav Singh (supra) relates to EWS certificates, which this court does not find relevant. Similarly, the decision of Divya (supra) is based on its own peculiar facts and circumstances, which this court does not find to be applicable in the present case.
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.
15 OA No.2424/2023Item 87 (C-4) 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 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."
This judgment has also factored in and distinguished the judgment in case of Divya vs. Union of India which dealt with EWS (Income and Asset) Certificate and Bedanga Talukdar (PWD Certificate). It has reiterated and reposed faith in the Judgments of Pushpa and Ram Kumar Gijroya that OBC-NCL certificate is a mere proof of what already exists. The acquisition of the OBC-NCL certificate is not the acquisition of a new eligibility / qualification but a mere formal evidence of what already exists in fact.
Further his submissions and contentions revolve around the following the following :-
"A. ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICANT UNDER OBC (NCL) CATEGORY IS AN EXISTING FACT IN VIEW OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AS PRECRIBED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT B. REQUIREMENT OF OBC-NCL CERTIFICATE IS A MERE "PROOF AFFIRMATION" OF EXISTING ELIGIBILITY OF THE 16 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) APPLICANT UNDER OBC-NCL CATEGORY AND NOT AKIN TO ACQUIRING ANY ELIGIBILITY C. THE PRESENT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT IN "RAVI KUMAR VS AIIMS (SUPRA)" PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ON 02.02.2024 D. WHETHER ANY RANDOM TIMEFRAME/CUT-OFF PRESCRIBED IN RELATION TO OBC-NCL IN THE NATURE OF A QUALIFICATION, IS LEGALLY TENABLE OR NOT?
8. Heard the learned counsel of both the sides ; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments advanced by both the parties. We have observed that this case was reserved for Orders on 20.01.2024. However, learned counsel for the applicant filed MA No. 318/2025 after the case was reserved to take on record the OBC (NCL) certificate dated 23.07.2022 which was annexed along with the response dated 28.07.2023 to the deficiency Notice dated 25.07.2023. As per the learned counsel, the said certificate which is very crucial was inadvertently omitted from being annexed in the OA due to some clerical error.
For the reasons mentioned in the M.A as well as on no objection from the other side, the said M.A is allowed and the said document is taken on record.
9. We have observed that the applicant has furnished three OBC (NCL) certificates from the office of Tehsildar, Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. Govt. dated 19.05.2021; 23.07.2022 and 05.06.2023 to the respondents. These cover the period of FYs 2021-22; 2022-23 17 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) and 2023-24. The applicant has taken pains and done the 'due diligence' to obtain the necessary OBC (NCL) Certificate from the Revenue authorities. The first certificate dated 19.05.2021 was obtained during the trying and testing times of second wave of Covid- 19 epidemic. He thus deserves to be given credit for this arduous exercise. We also abide by the judgment given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ravi Kumar vs. AIIMS (supra) which fairly and squarely covers this case. The respondents-DDA had randomly prescribed the time frame of 10.07.2021 to 10.07.2022 for obtaining OBC NCL Certificate creating distinct classes within the same FY 2021-22. First class contains OBC-NCL issued from 01.04.2021 to 09.07.2021, the second class contains certificates issued between the period of 10.07.2021 to 31.03.2022. Respondent has how chosen to consider as valid, all the certificates issued between 10.07.2021 to 31.03.2022, and consider as invalid, those issued between 01.04.2021 to 09.07.2021, despite certificates in both the classes valid till 31.03.2022 and being based on incomes of the same set of financial years i.e., F.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. Also the respondents-DDA have arbitrarily rejected the Applicant's OBC-NCL certificate dated 19.05.2021 (in prescribed format) because it was issued before 10.07.2021 despite being valid for FY 2021-22 which is also the relevant financial year under consideration. Thus the prescribed time frame in respect of OBC NCL certificate required to be issued between 10.07.2021 to 10.07.2022 is ex-facie arbitrary, 18 OA No.2424/2023 Item 87 (C-4) without any application of mind and does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through the reservation of seats.
10. In view of the foregoing as well as the fact that the applicant had already qualified in all stages of the selection process except document verification, the balance of convenience lies with the applicant. This OA has merit, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the Annexure A/10 (List of provisionally selected candidates in merit order after document verification) in respect of the applicant only and direct the respondents to accept the OBC (NCL) certificate of the applicant dated 23.07.2022 and consider issuing offer of appointment to him to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Post Code : 02, under OBC category within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the applicant would be entitled to all consequential benefits like fixation of pay and allowances and seniority on notional basis. However, there will be no payment of arrears of pay and allowances on the principle of 'No work no pay'. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending M.A (s) if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/