Delhi High Court
Anand Lal Yadav vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi, ... on 1 November, 2002
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal
JUDGMENT Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 14, 2002 in CWP No. 1124/2002 whereby the writ petition seeking appointment of the appellant to the post of teacher under OBC Category was dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-
The Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an advertisement for filling vacancies of Primary Teachers in the schools run by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Committee. The last date by which the applications were required to be received was June 30, 1998. The appellant applied for the post of a Primary Teacher as a general category candidate under Post Code 08/98 (Primary Teacher, MCD) and Post Code 10/98 (Assistant Teacher, NDMC). It appears that the appellant obtained an OBC certificate on March 19, 1999 from the Government of NCT of Delhi. Having obtained the certificate, the appellant on March 22, 1999 requested the DSSSB to treat him as an OBC candidate. Along with the representation the OBC certificate was also sent to the DSSSB. In June 1999 a list of selected candidates was published. However, the name of the appellant was missing from the list. The appellant secured 47.27 points, while the cut off score for candidates who applied under general category was 53.21 points and 56.85 points under Post Code 08/98 and 10/98 respectively. In so far as OBC category was concerned, there is no doubt that the appellant had a higher score than the cut off score fixed for the candidates belonging to the OBC category. The appellant aggrieved by his non-selection filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1124/2002, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge observed that there was delay on the part of the appellant in approaching the court. The learned Single Judge emphasised that in the matters of recruitment in pursuance to public advertisements, a candidate aggrieved by process of selection or any part thereof must approach the court expeditiously. The learned Single Judge also held that the appellant could not be considered as an OBC candidate as when the application form for the post in question was submitted he did not apply under the category and later on when the OBC certificate was submitted on March 22, 1999 last date fixed for the receipt of the applications was over.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the appellant could not be treated as an OBC candidate since he had submitted the caste certificate much after the date fixed for the receipt of the applications. Accordingly to the learned counsel, the advertisement did not fix the date for submission of the caste certificates. He also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. v. Tej Pal Singh and Ors., LPA No. 304/2000, decided on December 15, 2000, and submitted that the appellant was eligible to be appointed to the post of Teacher under the OBC category.
3. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, we regret our inability to accept the same. The appellant did not apply under OBC category. If he did not apply under OBC category, he was rightly treated as a candidate belonging to the general category. It is not denied that the last date for receipt of the applications was June 30, 1998. That means the applications received beyond June 30, 1998 were liable to be rejected. When a date is fixed for receipt of applications it implied that by that date the application complete in all respects is required to be dispatched/submitted to the authority concerned. The OBC certificate obtained by the appellant was sent to the DSSSB on March 22, 1999, i.e., almost after nine months of the last date fixed for receiving the applications. It has been pointed out in the affidavit filed by Shri M.L. Narang, Deputy Education Officer, M.C.D., in reply to the writ petition that the DSSSB received more than one lakh applications in response to the advertisement published by the DSSSB on June 11, 1998. As per the affidavit, the appointment/selection of Primary Teachers was made on the basis of academic merit. The affidavit also points out that in case the appellant is treated as belonging to OBC category at that late stage, the selection process will never be completed. The learned Single Judge appreciating the stand taken by the respondents came to the conclusion that since the appellant had applied as a general category candidate and not under OBC category, the respondents cannot be expected to treat him as an OBC candidate. The stand of the respondents cannot be faulted. The filling up of the vacancies cannot be allowed to be delayed by permitting candidates to apply for change in the category under which they originally applied after the last date fixed for receipt of the applications on the ground of having acquired a fresh document or a certificate. In case a candidate is allowed to change the category under which he had applied earlier, the process of selection will be prolonged affecting the interests of the students. The reliance of the appellant on Tej Pal Singh's case (supra) is misplaced. In Tej Pal Singh's case (supra) the respondents had applied under the scheduled caste category and had submitted the requisite documents including scheduled caste certificates along with their applications from the State to which they belonged. However, they were required to submit the certificates issued by the competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi. The SDM delayed the issuance of the requisite certificates. The respondents therein along with their applications had submitted prima facie proof in support of their claim of belonging to scheduled caste category. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the delay in submission of the certificates should not come in the way of the candidates for appointment to the post of teacher. The case is hand is distinguishable on facts as the appellant had not applied under the OBC category nor had he submitted along with his application a certificate of the competent authority of the State of Bihar certifying him to be belonging to OBC category which could have been treated as prima facie proof in support of his status. As we understand, Tej Pal Singh's case (supra) deals with a proposition that the candidature of a person, who submits his application under the scheduled caste category and supports it by a certificate from the State from which he or his father migrated to Delhi, cannot be rejected just because the certificate of the competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi certifying his status as being a scheduled caste was submitted beyond the cut off date. In any event, we do not agree with the view expressed in Tej Pal Singh's case (supra) that the OBC certificates issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi could be submitted after June 30, 1998, the cut off date fixed for the receipt of the applications. If the candidates are allowed to submit such certificates beyond the cut off date, as already pointed out, it will lead to a situation where the selection list will never be completed expeditiously.
4. That apart we find that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay of about two and a half years. The selection was made in the year 1999 while the writ petition was filed in the year 2001. The laches of the appellant have to be viewed with disdain. Challenge to appointments or selections must be made expeditiously as there should be no uncertainty about such matters. The rights of third parties get involved who cannot be left guessing about their future. Since the appellant approached the writ court after lapse of about two and a half years, the learned Single Judge was entirely right in dismissing the writ petition.
5. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.