Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjay Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 11 March, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.2046/2018
New Delhi, this the 11th day of March, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Sanjay Kumar
Aged about 28 years
s/o Shri Om Prakash
Candidate of TGT in Govt. of NCTD in Group 'B',
Through DSSSE now resident of
C/o Baljit Singh Panchal,
H. No.17-A, Panchal Floor Mill,
Durga Vihar, Phase-I,
Nazafgarh, Delhi 110 043. .... Applicant.
(By Advocate : Shri O. P. Chakravorti)
Vs.
1. Govt. of NCT Delhi
Through the Secretary Education
Secretariat, IP Estaet,
Delhi 110 002.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through the Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi 92. ... Respondents.
: ORDER (ORAL) :
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the 2nd respondent herein, issued a Notification in the year 2014 inviting applications for various posts in the Medical and Education Departments. One such post is Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Computer Science with Post 2 Code No.192/2014. As many as 2026 posts in this category were notified. Out of them, 547 posts were reserved in favour of OBC. The applicant responded to the advertisement, claiming the status of OBC. The social status certificate submitted by him was issued by the State of Haryana. A written test was conducted and the applicant was issued Admit Card. Result was declared and at the final stage, the applicant was informed that his candidature cannot be considered since he did not possess the caste certificate issued by Delhi Government. This OA is filed challenging the condition incorporated in the advertisement to the effect that the case certificate must be the one, issued by Delhi Government, and the action of the respondent in rejecting his candidature.
2. The applicant contends that once his candidature was considered and he was permitted to participate in the written examination, there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to reject his candidature at the later point of time. It is also pleaded that the conditions stipulated in para 3 of the advertisement, which insisted that the certificate issued by the 1st respondent alone would hold good is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3
3. We heard Shri O. P. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the applicant in detail at the stage of admission.
4. The applicant claims the status of OBC, in the context of selection to the post of TGT (Computer Science). He has enclosed a certificate issued by the State of Haryana along with the application. Since close verification of the social status is relegated to the stage of interview in the event of the candidate being short listed, it does not appear that any objection was raised by the 2nd respondent at the time of issuing the admit card. The applicant participated in the examination and was even short listed. At the stage of verification of the records, it emerged that the certificate was not issued by the Delhi Government.
5. The clause contained in the advertisement in this behalf reads as under:-
"iii) The OBC candidates must be in possession of filled prescribed Annexure, along with his/her caste certificate issued by Govt. of Delhi only (which is available on the website of Board).
In clear and categorical terms, the respondents made it clear that the benefit of reservation would be extended only to those candidates, who are issued caste certificate by the 1st respondent. In case the applicant felt aggrieved by this condition, he was expected to challenge the same before he submitted his application. Challenging the condition at 4 this stage is totally impermissible. For all practical purposes, he acquiesced in the said condition and did not protest at the relevant point of time.
6. Further, in case that condition is set aside at this stage, it would amount to preventing a large number of candidates who were otherwise willing to apply, but for the fact that they did not possess the caste certificate issued by the Government of Delhi, and conferring the benefit of claiming social status on the basis of certificate issued by an authority other than the 1st respondent on the applicant alone. It is, in fact, in such a situation, that a clear discrimination would result if his plea is accepted.
7. Though the applicant states that he has been issued a caste certificate by the 1st respondent in the year 2017, that would not be of any help to him. The relevant date is the one mentioned in the advertisement. Subsequent production of a certificate does not cure the principal defect.
8. We do not find any merit in the OA. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /pj/