Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Order reserved on 09.02.2017)
OA No. 060/00536/2016 Date of decision: 22.02.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Kamaljeet Kaur D/o Sh. Hardyal Singh, Aged 29 years,
Resident of V.P.O. Mehatpur Uladani,
Teh. Balachaur,
Distt. Nawanshahr,
Punjab.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Sandeep Siwatch.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. Chandigarh Administration
Through its Education Secretary, Department of Education, Chandigarh, 1st Floor,
Additional Deluxe Building,
Sector 9,
Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions (School) Education Department, Chandigarh Administration,
Additional Deluxe Building, Union Territory,
Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Sanjay Guevera, proxy counsel for Sh. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. By means of present O.A, the applicant has assailed the discrepancy list dated 17.06.2015 qua her issued by the Committee under the control of respondent no. 3 vide which her category has been changed from OBC to General on the ground that Saini caste was notified in the U.T list after the last date of submission of application forms. She further sought issuance of direction from this Tribunal to consider her candidature under OBC category by granting her the benefit of Notifications issued by Government of India, in 1999, letter dated 26.08.1986 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Welfare to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration and further latest notification dated 26.03.2015 and then appoint her to the post of TGT Science (Medical).
2. The facts are not in dispute.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant very fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present O.A has already been settled by Honble jurisdictional High Court in CWP NO. 17735/2010 titled Manish & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors. decided on 14.08.2015. He also placed reliance upon the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 060/00196/2014 titled as Dharambir Vs. U.O.I & Ors. decided on 29.01.2015 and in O.A No. 060/00546/2015 titled as Rajesh Kumar Vs. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. decided on 20.10.2015 wherein it is settled that the candidates who submitted their OBC certificate after cut-off date are also entitled for the benefit of the OBC category. He also placed reliance upon the recent order passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 060/00657/2016 titled Pritbir Kaur Vs. U.O.I & Ors. decided on 03.01.2017.
4. Learned proxy counsel for the respondents submitted that since Saini Caste was included in the OBCs on 26.03.2015 and was not available upto the closing date of receipt of application forms, therefore, benefit cannot be extended to the applicant by considering her claim under OBC and accordingly, her claim has been rejected and her name was included in the discrepancy list. However, he also admitted that issue raised in the instant O.A is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Honble High Court in case of Manish (supra).
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and are in agreement with the submission made at the hands of the applicant that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Honble jurisdictional High Court passed in case of Manish (supra) which has subsequently been followed by this Tribunal in case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) and Pritbir Kaur (supra). Since the claim of the applicant also relates that her candidature be considered as an OBC candidate, the present O.A is allowed in the same terms as has been rendered in case of Manish (supra). The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
13. Learned counsel for the U.T., Chandigarh brought to the notice of the Bench that a permanent body as contemplated in the above judgement was constituted and as per the recommendation made by the permanent body, 'Saini' caste has been included at S.No.65 as per the Notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration, Social Welfare Department on 26.3.2015. The copy of the said Notification was also placed on record for proper appreciation. Now the fact remains that 'Saini' community has been included as one of the OBC category communities as per the above Notification. It is found that only for the period from 14.9.2009 to 26.3.2015 'Saini' caste was kept at bay from claiming the benefit of reservation as an OBC category in the appointments made by U.T., Chandigarh. In our considered view, the benefit of reservation to 'Saini' caste as interpreted by U.T., Chandigarh Administration on 23.12.2003 should have been extended upto 26.3.2015 when the permanent body took a decision to include that caste also as one of the OBC categories.
14. The communication sent by Director General of Police, U.T., Chandigarh dated 25.9.2009 found appended as Annexure P-8 in CWP No.17735 of 2010 would reflect that Director General of Police has virtually lamented the incongruous stand taken now by the U.T., Chandigarh in the matter of extending benefit of reservation to 'Saini' community. He had virtually exposed the hollow approach of the U.T. Chandigarh in suddenly issuing the clarification on 14.9.2009 that 'Saini' caste which does not find a place in the U.T., Chandigarh List, but finds a place in the Central List is not entitled to the benefit of reservation. The adverse impact emerged on account of such an arbitrary decision taken by the U.T., Chandigarh also has been highlighted by the Director General of Police, U.T., Chandigarh.
15. In the Standing Ordder No.41/2009 issued for the subject recruitment of Constables (Executive), it has been specifically notified that 27% of vacancies have been reserved for OBC candidates as per Central List and List issued by the U.T., Chandigarh Administration. But such a clear standing order issued for the current recruitment has been completely given a go by in the guise of fresh interpretation.
16. In our considered view, the U.T., Chandigarh has committed illegality by giving a new interpretation in the communication dated 14.9.2009. On this ground as well, the communication sent by the Social Welfare Department on 14.9.2009 is liable to be quashed.
17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned Clarificatory communication issued by the official respondents on 14.9.2009 stands quashed and the official respondents are directed to proceed with the selection of the petitioners from the stage at which it was given up treating them as OBC category entitled to avail the benefit of reservation, and issue orders of appointment within two months from the date of this order, if they are otherwise found fit and eligible. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench stands set aside and the writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
6. No costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 22.02.2017
`jk
1
OA No. 060/00536/2016