Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pappu Ram Meena vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.761/2010 Judgment reserved on: January 19, 2011. Date of Decision: 28.01.2011. New Delhi, this the 28th day of January, 2011 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) 1. Pappu Ram Meena, son of Shri Ram Kumar Meena, R/o RZF-273/5N, Gali No.20, Sadh Nagar-IInd, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045. 2. Kapil Dev, son of Shri Bhagwan Sahay, Gali No. 38, Sadh Nagar-IInd, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045. 3. Manoj Kumar Meena, son of Shri Ram Prasad Meena, B-Block, New Gopal Nagar, Near Meena STD, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 4. Shiv Dayal Meena, son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, R/o Village Gopalpura, Post-Kishori, Tehsil Tahnagahji, Distt. Alwar, Pin Code-301022. 5. Jitender Kumar Meena, son of Shri Kishan Lal Meena, R/o RZ 71B, New Gopal Nagar, Near Meena STD, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 6. Chhotu Ram Meena, son of Shri Nathu Ram Meena, R/o Village Berki, Post Biharjar via Maid, Tehsil Virat Nagar, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan). 7. Ramesh Kumar Meena son of Shri Nathu Ram Meena, R/o Village & Post Bishangarh Via Manoharpur, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj) Pin-303104. 8. Rajesh Kumar Meena son of Shri Jaldhari Lal Meena, R/o Village & Post Balahera, Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa (Raj). -Applicants (By Advocate Shri Manish Raghan) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Institutional Area, Behind Karkarduma Court Complex, Shahdara, Delhi. 3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocates Shri Anil Singal for Mrs. P.K. Gupta, Mrs. Sumedha Sharma and Shri Balendu Shekhar) ORDER
Justice S.D. Anand:
The applicants, who are candidates for appointment to the various posts advertised by Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as `the Board), have applied for the invalidation of the view obtained by the Board that the applicants being migrants from other States are not entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State of Delhi. The relevant caste/tribe certifications, produced by the applicants in support of their claim of the reservation benefit, were negated by Respondent No.2. The fact of the applicants having qualified the preliminary and mains examinations for the posts of Teacher (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) notwithstanding, no appointment in their favour came about in the Scheduled Tribe category. Initially, the applicants were informed that their result is under process but no appointment order came about in their favour ultimately.
2. The Board, in its counter, averred that it is bound by the instructions given by the Competent Authority which forwards the requisitions for appointment. (As regard admissibility of benefit of reservation for reserved categories the Board followed to the instructions/orders issued by the Govt. of India/Govt. of NCT of Delhi as communicated to it from time to time. Accordingly in SECTION-B GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FORMS, the advertisement stipulates following instructions:
(5) RESERVATION BENEFITS:
(i) Reservation benefits will be available to the candidates in accordance with the instructions/orders/circulars issued from time to time by competent/notified authorities). On its part, it was averred by the Board that it did not consider the eligibility of the applicants against reserved quota in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court. (The Board in compliance of the judgment dated 04.08.2009 of Honble Supreme Court of India as passed in court case Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2009 arising out of Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24327/05 Subhash Chandra & Anr. V/s DSSSB & Ors., has not considered SC/ST candidates of other than of Delhi origin as eligible for admissibility of benefit of reservation. Since at the time of declaration of result of post code 16/08 the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India was being examined for compliance, as such in result notice of post code 16/08, it was indicted that result in respect of ST vacancies is under process and will be declared in due course. Result in respect of SC candidates whose SC caste certificates were found issued by the authorities of GNCT of Delhi based on their parents SC caste certificate of other States were also indicated in pending list. It is a fact that before pronouncement of judgment dated 04.08.2009, the Board as per instructions of Government as conveyed vide Services Department letter dated 30.06.2005 use to consider SC/ST candidates eligible for admissibility of benefit of reservation irrespective of their nativity.)
3. It is apparent, from a perusal of the record, that no counter came to be filed by Respondents 1 and 3 in spite of the fact that the co-ordinate Bench granted a number of adjournments for the purpose aforementioned. It is on 23.04.2010 that the learned Counsel entered appearance for the first time on behalf of Respondents 1 and 3. On that date, there was a request for adjournment and three weeks time was allowed for filing of reply. It is apparent from order dated 31.05.2010 that the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 informed the Court that the counter would be filed during the course of the day. However, none came to be filed. The matter was adjourned to 02.07.2010. The MCD (Respondent No.3) was represented by the learned counsel, who requested and was granted two weeks time to file reply and the matter was adjourned to 03.08.2010. However, no counter came to be filed on their behalf. Thereafter, the case came to be adjourned to various dates, i.e. 03.08.2010, 20.08.2010,07.09.2010, 06.10.2010, 24.11.2010, 15.12.2010 but no counter came to be filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3.
4. It is thus, apparent that the pleadings herein have been raised only on behalf of the applicants and Respondent No.2.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants vehemently canvassed that the view obtained by the Board, in declining to accord the reservation benefit to the applicants, deserves outright invalidation in view of the fact that the certification aforesaid has been issued by the Competent Authority of NCT Delhi and further because entitlement of the progeny of the migrant parents (i.e., those who migrated to Delhi from some other States) has been categorically upheld by the Delhi High Court in CWP No.5061/2001 Kunwar Pal and Others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., CWP No.2997/2002 Sunita Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CWP No.1313/2002 Manoj K. Gautam v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., CWP No.1312/2002 Ms. Anita v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., CWP No.728/2001 Ms. Ritu Verma v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., CWP No.7083/2001 Sugar Singh Jatav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., CWP No.5469/2001, Deepak Kumar & Others v. D.S.S.S.B. & Ors., CWP NO.1583/2002 Ms. Promila Kumar v. D.S.S.S.B. & Ors. and CWP No.573/2002 Ms. Shubra Varun & Ors. v. Union of India and others, decided on 31.05.2002 (Annexure P-2).
6. Learned counsel also pointed out that the LPA filed against that judgment came to be negated on 13.05.2009 (Annexure-3).
7. The plea was resisted on behalf of the Board, which averred that the view obtained was in compliance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Subhash Chandras case (supra).
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the point in controversy. We find that the plea raised by the applicants deserves to be negated. We would proceed to indicate the reasoning in support of the view obtained.
9. It may be noticed, at the very outset, that though the applicants made a precise averment in the course of the OA and that they have completed their entire education in Delhi and there is a valid ST certificate issued in their favour by the Competent Authority of NCT of Delhi, they appear to have consciously refrained from making an averment that they were born in Delhi.
10. It was noticed by the Delhi High Court in the very opening paragraph of the judgment (Annexure P-2) that the challenge therein was qua the denial of reservation benefit to those who had been born and brought up in Delhi but who are progenies of persons who had migrated to Delhi from various parts of the country (The contentions issue of benefit of reservation to persons who are born and brought up in Delhi but who are progenies of persons who had migrated to Delhi from various parts of the country has given rise to this batch of writ petitions).
11. In another part of the judgment, the High Court further noticed the contentions raised on behalf of applicants therein. The relevant part thereof is extracted hereunder:
However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once a caste or category is notified in Delhi, the candidate belongs to the said caste or category and the candidate is born and brought up in Delhi then such a candidate must be entitled to the benefit of reservation. The submission is based on the contention that persons born and brought up in Delhi are not a first generation migrants and the certificates which have been issued to such persons on the basis of their fathers certificate since instead of making independent enquiries it was found more convenient to issue the certificates on the basis of the certificates already issued to the father.
12. After analyzing the respective stances raised therein on behalf of the parties thereto, the High Court, in allowance of the CWPs aforementioned, ordered issuance of a writ of mandamus to appoint such of the petitioners who are born and brought up in Delhi, the caste is notified as a reserved caste in Delhi but the certificate issued to them is on the basis of the certificate issued to their fathers who were the migrants from other States.
13. There can, thus be no escape from the conclusion that the claim for grant of reservation benefit (ST) can be raised only by those who have been born and brought up in Delhi and the relevant caste is notified as a reserved caste in NCT of Delhi. If those requirements are met, the fact that parents of those candidates had migrated from other States and also the fact that the certificate issued by the Competent Authority of NCT of Delhi had been granted on the basis of the certificate issued in favour of their fathers by the Competent Authority of the State of their origin.) would cease to be of any relevance.
14. We can safely cull out from the above discussion that the applicants herein cannot validly claim entitlement to ST reservation benefits, as they have even refrained from making an averment (in the course of the OA) to the effect that they were born and brought up in Delhi.
15. In an identical controversy in Rajeev Kumar v. Union of India & Others (OA No.2157/2010, decided on 25.01.2010), we have taken a similar view, which is in accord with the view obtained by the High Court in its judgment (Annexure P-2).
16. Finding the OA to be completely denuded of merit and bereft of substance, we have no hesitation in dismissing it. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs of the cause.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (S.D. Anand) Member (A) Member (J) San.