Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Mukesh Rawat vs Union Public Service Commission on 26 April, 2024
OA No. 73/2023 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 73/2023
Order Reserved on: 02.04.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 26.04.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Mukesh Rawat son of Shri Vijay Singh Rawat aged
about 37 years (DOB 12.07.1985), resident of 905,
B.K. Kaul Nagar, Ajmer-305001, Rajasthan. Mob.
9913370712, [email protected] (Seeking
appointment on the post of Vice-Principal, UPSC, New
Delhi (Group-B post).
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant.
VERSUS
Union Public Service Commission through its
Chairman, Dholpur House, New Delhi.
.... Respondent
Shri D.C. Sharma, counsel for respondent
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature on the ground of overage by treating him the member of unreserved category vide communication /notice/ result dated 17.01.2023 OA No. 73/2023 2 (Annexure A/1). The applicant has prayed that the Result Annexure A/1 for the post of Vice Principal whereby the applicant's candidature has been rejected by treating him in unreserved category on the ground of overage be declared as illegal and the same be quashed and aside. He further prayed that the respondent be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant as OBC candidate for all the purposes and to give age relaxation to him. He has also prayed that the respondent be directed to permit him to participate in interview and subsequent selection process and declare the result according to his OBC category. Further, the condition of OBC category for the post of Vice Principal as mentioned in the advertisement may be given harmonious interpretation by declaring that those who are having OBC certificate issued by the competent authority for Central Government service are eligible for consideration under OBC category.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that an Advertisement No. 10/2022 (Annexure A/2) was issued by the Union Public Service Commission inviting online applications for recruitment by selection to various posts including the OA No. 73/2023 3 post of Vice Principal in the Directorate of Education, Education Department of NCT of Delhi. In total 131 vacancies were notified for the post of Vice Principal. Out of 131 vacancies, 36 vacancies (14 male and 22 female) were reserved for OBC category. The applicant states that for the post of Vice Principal, the prescribed age limit was 35 years with further age relaxation to different category. Experience required was two years as PGT or three years experience as TGT. It was further envisaged in the advertisement that reservation under OBC category will be provided only to those candidates who submit OBC certificate issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Candidates who submit OBC certificate issued by other State / Union Territory will be considered as General / Unreserved candidate against General / Unreserved vacancies.
3. The applicant claims that he belongs to OBC category, which can be seen from the caste certificate issued by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer for appointment to the post under the Government of India. He is also working as PGT (Physics) in KVS. He was appointed as PGT (Physics) on 23.03.2019, as OA No. 73/2023 4 such, he is having two years experience as PGT required for the post of Vice Principal.
4. The applicant states that in pursuance to the said Notification (Annexure A/2), he applied in the category of OBC. Being OBC candidate, he was entitled for age relaxation of three years as admissible to the candidates belonging OBC category. The selection process was consisting of written examination followed by interview. Applicant appeared in the written examination and qualified the same. On 17th January, 2023, respondent has declared the result. But the respondent included the name of the applicant in the list of candidates whose candidature has been rejected on account of being overage after considering him in un-reserved category.
5. The applicant further states that from the Annexure A/1 result dated 17.01.2023, it is clear that he is considered as un-reserved category candidate. Whereas, he is an OBC candidate, which can be seen from the certificate issued by the SDO, Ajmer for the Government of India services. The condition of advertisement though provides that certificate of OBC issued by the State Government / UT will not be considered for OBC category but it was a certificate OA No. 73/2023 5 issued for the services in the Union Government. The applicant asserts that certificate issued by the officer of State Government for Union services is bound to be considered as necessary certificate of particular category of union service.
6. In response, the respondent / UPSC has filed a short reply stating that vide advertisement No. 10/2022, the post of Vice Principal in Education Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has been advertised wherein upper age limit for the said post is 35 years (EWS: 35 years, Gen.: 35 years, OBC: 38 years, SC 40 years, ST: 40 years) and relaxable for Government servants upto 5 years. The respondent states that the applicant was duly aware and notified of the requirement of submission of relevant documents and certificates, including the OBC certificate issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as stipulated in the said advertisement. Any other condition as mentioned in the said advertisement is reproduced below: -
"Any other condition: Reservation under OBC Category will be provided only to those candidates who submit OBC certificates issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Candidates who submit OBC certificate issued by other States / UTs will be considered as General / Unreserved candidates against General / Unreserved vacancies."OA No. 73/2023 6
7. The respondent further states that the applicant submitted his application as an OBC candidate accompanied by certificate issued by the SDO Ajmer, Government Rajasthan. On scrutiny of the application of the applicant, it was found that the claim of OBC status by the applicant was not valid and justified since the benefit of OBC is admissible within a State only. The OBC of one State is not entitled to claim OBC benefit in another State in terms of Article 342 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Advertisement being for employment under GNCTD, OBC certificate certifying status of OBC belonging to Delhi alone is valid for the benefit of age relaxation etc. Consequently, on account of failure on the part of the applicant in providing the requisite / valid certificate as mandated under the Advertisement, the candidature of the applicant as OBC was rightly rejected by the UPSC. Further, the applicant on being treated as General candidate was found to be overage in terms of the conditions regarding maximum age on the prescribed date. Therefore, the respondent prays that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed. OA No. 73/2023 7
8. Heard both the sides and perused the material available on record.
9. The issue in short is that in pursuance to the advertisement No. 10/2022 for recruitment by selection to the post of Vice Principal in the Directorate of Education, Education Department of NCT of Delhi, the applicant had applied and participated in the selection process. Along with his application, he submitted OBC certificate issued by SDO, Ajmer, Government of Rajasthan; whereas, there was a specific condition in the advertisement with regard to submission of OBC certificate, which reads as under: -
"Any other condition: Reservation under OBC Category will be provided only to those candidates who submit OBC certificates issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Candidates who submit OBC certificate issued by other States / UTs will be considered as General / Unreserved candidates against General / Unreserved vacancies."
From bare perusal of the aforementioned specific condition, it is clear that only those candidates who submitted OBC certificates issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi were to be considered against the OBC category post and, accordingly, were to be given age relaxation and further it was specifically mentioned that anyone OA No. 73/2023 8 who submitted OBC certificate issued by other States / UTs will be considered as General / Unreserved candidates against General / Unreserved vacancies and, accordingly, not entitled to the age relaxation. Since the applicant submitted the OBC certificate of other State than the Government of NCT of Delhi (issued by SDO, Ajmer, Government of Rajasthan), he was considered against General / Unreserved category and, hence, was not given age relaxation which would have been granted had he been considered in the OBC category. In the present O.A., the applicant by seeking that OBC certificate issued by any competent authority / State Government for Central Government services be considered eligible for consideration under OBC category in the recruitment process being undertaken in pursuance to the advertisement No. 10/2022 issued by the UPSC, amounts to changing the specific condition made in the above mentioned advertisement notice. In other words, it amounts to change of condition of eligibility; more particularly after having participated in the selection process. It is not a case where only the applicant has been singled out, the terms and conditions of this advertisement for recruitment is applicable to all. Besides, the OBC in one State might not be OBC in other State. That is OA No. 73/2023 9 why in the above mentioned advertisement, it was made clear that only the OBC certificate issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi will be considered and not the OBC certificate issued by any other States / UTs will be considered.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754. In our opinion, this judgment is not applicable to the present case as the specific issue involved in that case was as to whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under OBC category or not. In that case, the candidate although was in possession of the OBC certificate issued by the appropriate authority; yet he failed to submit the same before the cut-off date. But in the present case, the applicant is not in possession of OBC certificate issued by the "appropriate authority" as has been stipulated in the advertisement to be considered as OBC in Delhi for recruitment in Education Department of NCT of Delhi. Learned OA No. 73/2023 10 counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pushpa vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281. In that case, the candidate was from SC category, however, his candidature was rejected on the ground that his SC certificate was not dated prior to 30.06.1998 (the relevant date in that recruitment process) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a person is SC he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category, because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to SC category. As such, their Lordships held that it was not the case that the petitioner did not belong to SC category prior to 30.06.1998. However, in the present case, the applicant is claiming OBC status and the OBC status is State / Region specific, a category which is OBC in one State might not be so in the other State, whereas, SC is by birth.
OA No. 73/2023 11
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Tarsem Lal [in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1663 of 2019) vide its judgment dated February 07, 2024 has held as under: -
"29. In view of the judgments of this Court in the aforesaid cases, we hold that insofar as a person claiming benefit having regard to his status as a Scheduled Tribe in a State, when he migrates to a Union Territory where a Presidential Order has not been issued at all insofar Scheduled Tribe is concerned, or even if such a Notification is issued, such an identical Scheduled Tribe does not find a place in such a Notification, the person cannot claim his status on the basis of his being noted as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.
30. Reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in Bir Singh by the learned counsel for the respondent is also of no assistance since the said case concerned granting of benefits to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of employment and education in a particular State and Union Territory and that a migrant to that particular State or Union Territory cannot place reliance on his or her status in the State of origin for the purpose of claiming similar benefit in a State to which he or she has migrated. Reliance was placed on paragraph 68 of the said judgment wherein this Court noted that it had refrained from addressing the issue in question as far as other Union Territories apart from the National Capital Territory of Delhi are concerned, would not in any way further the case of the respondent when the significant fact is that there has been no notification issued by the President of India vis-à-vis Scheduled Tribe in the Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned.
32. The High Court lost sight of the aforesaid facts and instead placed reliance on Exhibit P-8 letter dated 21.09.1983 and Exhibit D-3 letter dated 21.05.1985 to hold that there was reservation made for Scheduled Tribe applicants OA No. 73/2023 12 also for allotment of dwelling units of flats. In fact, in the letter dated 21.09.1983 (Exhibit P-8) it has been expressly noted that there are no Scheduled Tribes notified for Union Territory of Chandigarh but there are general instructions on reservation for Scheduled Tribes enunciated in Appendix-3 Note 2 on the Brochure on Reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The said Brochure cannot override Article 342 of the Constitution of India which empowers the President of India to notify the Scheduled Tribes either for a State or for an Union Territory."
12. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present Original Application and, thus, the same deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER +/nlk/