Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Ravindra Devi vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 21 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH RA No.211/2011 IN OA NO.2049/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Mrs. Ravindra Devi W/o Shri Charan Singh R/o House No.211, Sector-10A, Gurgaon, (Haryana) 122001. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Pradeep Kumar) VERSUS 1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, through the Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Players Building, New Delhi 110002. 2. The Principal Secretary, Education, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi. Players Building, New Delhi 110002. 3. The Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054. 4. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services, Selection Board, FC-18 Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. Respondents (By Advocates: Sh. Amit Anand and Sh. Vijay Pandita) : ORDER : DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) :
By this Review Application, the applicant in OA No.2049/2010 is seeking to recall the order dated 27.05.2010, wherein, the OA was dismissed on the following terms:-
7. On the basis of the above discussion, it is clear that although the Applicant has qualified for the post of TGT, Hindi (female), yet she would not be eligible for selection as TGT in Delhi because the caste certificate has been issued to her by the State of Haryana. Such certificate would not be valid, even though she belongs to chamar caste in the State of Haryana, which is also notified as Scheduled Caste in Delhi, because for employment in Delhi the certificate had to be issued by the competent authority of Government of NCT of Delhi. The certificate issued by the competent authority of State of Haryana would not acceptable in Delhi.
8. The OA fails on the basis of above consideration and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no orders as to costs.
2. Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicant would submit that errors on facts and law have crept in the above order. He submits that the Tribunal relying on the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra Versus DSSSB Dated 4.8.09 (2009) 15 SCC 458; and U.P.P.S.C. Versus Sanjay Kumar Singh (2003) 7 SCC 657 dismissed the OA. His contention was that the judgment in Subhash Chandras case (supra) was issued on 04.08.2009 and the selection process started in the year 2007 and as such the judgment being not existent then, would not be applicable in the applicants case. He further submits that pursuant to a subsequent Notification in April, 2008, 19 SC candidates belonging to States other than Delhi have been selected and appointed. He gave the names of Ms. Usha Kumar (Roll No.11114701), Ms. Bhawana Singh (Roll No.11111938), Ms. Anita (Roll No. 11112238) and Ms. Suman Rani (Roll No. 11112974) all SC candidates belonging to Haryana State have been appointed even after the decision of the Honble Apex Court judgment in Subhash Chandras case (supra). His contention is that the 4th respondent concealed these facts and discriminated the applicants case for which the Tribunal should review its order and pass a fresh judgment allowing the OA.
3. Opposing the above contentions, Shri Amit Anand, representing the review respondents would submit that the applicants case was fully covered by the judgment in Subhash Chandras case (supra) as she was possessing Scheduled Caste Certificate issued from the Haryana State and not from Delhi State. Referring to the discriminatory approach of the respondents in respect of four candidates, Shri Anand would clarify that those four candidates when selected and result was announced the judgment of Subhash Chandras case (supra) was not available. The judgment came subsequent to the selection of those four candidates. The provisional nature of their selection was not on the basis of scheduled caste certificate issued from the State other than Delhi but was on other aspects. He, therefore, submits that the Review Application being devoid of merits should be dismissed.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we perused the pleadings both in the Review Application as well as in the Original Application. We find that our order does not have any error either in law or in facts. However, in view of the legal points raised by the review applicant, we consider the same in following paragraphs.
5. First issue raised is regarding the applicability of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Subhash Chandras case (supra) prospectively and not retrospectively. It is trite law that the judicial decision and pronouncements where the ratio deci dendi is set, it is applicable retrospectively unless such pronouncements specifically mentioned that the law laid by the Honble Supreme Court would not have any retrospective effect. In this regard, we draw our strength from the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Uttranchal Jal Sansthan versus Laxmi Devi & Others [2010 (1) SC 43]. In the background of the above settled position in law, the instant case if examined, we note that the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Subash Chandras case (supra) is binding precedent and would have retrospective effect. Therefore, relying on the above judgment our order passed on 27.05.2011 is legally sound and does not have any possibility of our interference.
6. Another legal aspect was brought in claiming negative equality or reverse discrimination by citing four other cases where those selected candidates having Scheduled Caste Certificates from Haryana State were selected by DSSSB and appointed by the respondents. It is well settled position in law that reverse discrimination cannot be claimed as a right to equality and such claim is not legally admissible. Though the review respondents indicate that selection and appointment of those officers were made much before the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Subhash Chandras case (supra) came into being, even if, we presume that judgment in the said case was already available and even if the review respondents have committed certain illegality, the same mistakes cannot be committed again by granting the benefits to the applicant. As the reverse discrimination claiming equality on the illegal actions cannot be granted, the review applicants claim in this case is also not legally tenable.
7. For the reasons indicated above, we do not find any error apparent in the judgment of this Tribunal dated 27.05.2011 passed in OA No.2049/2010. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /pj/