Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Divesh Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.2089/2011 Order reserved on 20.09.2012 New Delhi this the 15th day of October, 2012 Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) Divesh Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Gopal, R/o H.No.8, Sahipur Village, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88 Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Pooja Wahal ) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Chairman, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Karkardooma, Institutional Area, Delhi-92 3. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through its Chairman, GNCT of Delhi. I.P.Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Alka Sharma and Shri Ajesh Luthra ) O R D E R Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) :
As per the requisition of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued advertisement No.03/2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the 5000 vacancies of Drivers under post Code 065/09 in the said Corporation. The closing date for submission of applications was 2.12.2009. In response to said advertisement, the applicant also submitted his application for appointment to the post in question. It is not in dispute that he was allowed to participate in combined written part-1 (objective) examination for short listing of candidates for OA 2089/2011 evaluation of their part-II answer sheets and also in part II (descriptive) examination held on 14.03.2010 and 21.03.2010. The result of aforementioned written examination was declared on 25.05.2010. Admittedly, the applicant was allowed to participate in the examination as an OBC candidate. He obtained 54 out of 100 marks. Although in his application the applicant had indicated his category as OBC, but in view of the fact that the last selected candidate from unreserved category had secured 58 marks, i.e. higher than the applicant, he was denied the appointment despite the fact that he had participated in the driving skill test on 07.07.2010 and was declared successful in the same. In information disclosed under Right to Information Act, the DSSSB revealed that the applicant was not considered for appointment to the post in question in OBC category, for the reason that he had not enclosed the requisite OBC certificate with his application. Thus, applicant has filed the present OA seeking issuance of direction to respondents to take into account his OBC certificate procured in July, 2010 and issue him offer of appointment to the post of Driver in DTC with all consequential benefits on the following grounds:-
*He had applied for the issuance of OBC certificate in his favour in September 2009, i.e. much before the closing date for submission of the application, i.e. 2.12.2009.
*While issuing notice No. 123 dated 6.12.2010 declaring the result of candidates selected provisionally for the post of Driver in DTC in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 (pre-revised) on the basis of aforementioned selection process in which applicant also participated, the respondent (DSSSB) withhold the result of certain candidates for various reasons, to be declared in due course and finally declared the said result vide result notice No 162 dated 17.02.2012 on completion of verification as regards to the OA 2089/2011 genuineness of the candidature and the scrutiny of document submitted by the candidate, thus when the applicant procured the OBC certificate in July, 2010 his candidature could also be examined along with the candidates whose result was declared on 17.02.2012.
*In his application the applicant declared his category as OBC and also in the admit card issued to him, his category was mentioned as OBC only.
*Being an OBC category candidate, the applicant is entitled to the benefit admissible to the person in said category and the certificate issued by competent authority is only an authentication of his said status. Relying upon the judgments of Honble Delhi High Court in Tej Pal Singh and Anr Vs. GNCT and Anr (120 (2005) Delhi Law Times 117) and Hari Singh Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Anr (WP( C) No. 11928/2009) decided on 6.04.2010), learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that merely on the basis of the fact that the applicant had not procured the OBC certificate before the last date for submission of the application, i.e. 2.12.2009, he cannot be denied the benefit available to the candidates from said category.
2. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel appearing for DTC assisted the Court referring to law of precedence on the subject. Ms. Alka Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and 2 argued that in the advertisement No. 03/2009 issued by the DSSSB inviting applications for the post in question, it was clearly mentioned that the OBC candidates seeking benefit of reservation were required to submit OBC certificate issued by the competent authority of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi along with the application form, thus when the applicant had not fulfilled OA 2089/2011 the said condition, he was rightly denied the benefit admissible to the candidates from said category. Para 4 of the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 reads as under:-
4. That the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), as per the requisition of the Delhi Transport Corporation, the User Departments, had advertised 5000 vacancies of Drivers under Post Code 065/09 vide advertisement No. 03/09, with closing date 02.12.2009. In the said advertisement the following conditions regarding reservation benefits, were also declared:
OBC candidates seeking benefit of reservation should submit OBC certificates issued by competent authorities of GNCT of Delhi along with the application form. She placed reliance upon the judgment dated 24.01.2012 passed by a Division Bench of Honble High Court in LPA No. 562/2011 (DSSSB & Anr Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya and Ors) and WP ( C ) No. 8087/2011 ( Ms. Renu Vs. The Chairman/Secretary, DSSSB & Ors ).
3. In rejoinder Ms. Pooja Wahal, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others ((2012) 1 SCC 113).
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
5. In view of the contentions and pleadings put forth by the parties, the issue arises to be determined by us in the present OA is, whether the candidature of the applicant for the post of Driver in DTC against a vacancy in OBC category could be withheld on the ground that the OBC certificate procured by him was of a date beyond the last date of submission of the application. Such issue has been considered by the Honble Delhi High Court in Tej Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr (supra), Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Gijroya and Ors and Ms. Renu Vs. The OA 2089/2011 Chairman/Secretary, DSSSB and Ors (supra), relied upon by the counsels appearing for the parties.
6. In Tej Pal Singh & Anr Vs. GNCTD & Ors ( 120 (2005) Delhi Law Times 117), the 29 petitioners belonging to Schedule caste category were not considered for selection for the post of teacher, including Assistant Teacher in Municipal Corporation of Delhi/New Delhi Municipal Committee on the ground that they submitted Scheduled Caste certificate after 30.06.1998, i.e. after the last date specified for the purpose. In the said case, Board issued advertisement in Newspaper for the various posts of teachers including Assistant Teachers to be appointed in various MCD/NDMC schools. The petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher as Scheduled Caste candidate and all the certificates including caste/ category certificate were verified between 6.10.1998 and 22.10.1998. The certificate of the petitioners in the said petition being of a date after 30.06.1998, their candidature was withheld. Thus they filed aforementioned Writ Petition (C) No. 1357/1999 (decided on 24.12.1999). In the said case, Honble Delhi High Court viewed that though in the advertisement published on 12.06.1998, the cut-off date for fulfilling the eligibility qua the educational qualifications, professional experience and age limit was fixed as 30.06.1998, but the said date was not specified as cut off date for procuring the caste/ category certificate. Paras 14 to 17 of the judgment read as under:-
14. This view taken by me stands confirmed even by the advertisement issued by the respondent Board itself. It seems that respondent Board was conscious of the aforesaid government guidelines. It is because of this reason that in the advertisement although 30th June, 1998 is stated as cutoff date to adjudge the eligibility qua educational qualification, professional experience and age limit, this date is not specified for the purpose of furnishing SC and OBC certificates. It is clear from the following insertion made in the advertisement about the eligibility of the candidates :-OA 2089/2011
ELIGIBILITY :
(a) The eligibility of candidates will be determined by their Educational Qualification, Professional experience and Age limit etc., as on 30.6.98.
(b) SC and OBC candidates must furnish certificate issued by the competent authority of Govt. of NCT of Delhi only.
(c) Applicant's Registration in Employment Exchange of National Capital Territory of Delhi is desirable.
15. Relying upon the aforesaid provision in the advertisement, Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in one of the petitions argued that while eligibility of candidates as per sub-para (a), is to be taken according to their educational qualifications, professional experience and age limit as on 30th June, 1998, but as per sub-para (b) SC and OBC candidates are to furnish certificate issued by competent authority of Government of NCTD, no such date is mentioned. Mentioning of the date of 30th June, 1998 in sub-para (b) and non-mentioning of this date in sub-para (b) is a significant omission with a purpose, namely, to enable the SC and OBC candidates to furnish certificates issued by the competent authority of government of NCTD even after 30th June, 1998 and this is in consonance with the guidelines of the government.
16. Thus it can be concluded that as per the government's own guidelines as well as respondent's own advertisement, petitioners were entitled to submit the SC certificate issued by competent authority of government of NCTD after 30th June, 1998 and these certificates were submitted by the petitioners within reasonable time. It was not appropriate for the respondents to reject the candidature of these petitioners on the ground that the certificates are dated after 30th June, 1998.
17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his 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 and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved. In the aforementioned judgment, Honble Delhi High Court also followed a decision of Bombay High Court in Deepak v. Competent Authority for the purpose of admission to Engineering Course in OA 2089/2011 Government Engineering College, Pune, reported in AIR 1997 Bom.1, wherein it was held that an application accompanied by the caste certificate issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, should be held to be sufficient for considering the claim of a candidate in a particular/reserved category. Further the judgment dated 27.07.1998 in Anshu Yadav V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors ( Writ Petition No. 1998) was distinguished by their Lordships, taking a view that the OBC status could be validly recognized only after the issuance of the certificate. Paras 34 and 35 of the order read as under:-
34. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1998 of 1998 entitled Anshu Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others (per K. Ramamoorthy, J.) dated 27th July, 1998 to contend that cut-off date fixed by the respondents in the said case was upheld by this court. A perusal of the judgment shows that in that case Municipal Corporation of Delhi had fixed cut-off date of 31st July, 1996 for applying 'Other Backward Class' certificate by the applicants. Para 9 of the said judgment is reproduced below :
"The argument of Mr. Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD about the attack on the policy has considerable force. The petitioner has not explained as to why she had not applied before the 31st July, 1996. If she had applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the 31st July, 1996 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had expressed any difficulty, the situation would be entirely different. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner cannot claim that, when the first respondent had considered the cases of applicants who had sent OBC certificates on or before the 31st of July, 1997, the case of the petitioner also should have been considered.
35. Thus the petitioners in the said case was required to apply to SDM before 31st July, 1996 to get the OBC certificate. It was not a case where certificate was to be submitted by a particular date. In this case there is no stipulation that the certificate was to be applied by a particular date. It may further be noted that OBC status of the candidate could be validly recognised only after the issuance of the certificate. This case is distinguishable on facts.
As can be seen from the aforementioned, the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in Tej Pal Singh and Ors Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) is distinguishable for two reasons, viz OA 2089/2011 In the said case in the advertisement it was not stipulated that the caste certificate should have been of a date prior to the last date of submission of application; and It has been categorically held that the OBC status of the applicant should be validly recognized only after the issuance of the certificate.
Rather in view of para 30 of the said judgment, if any support can be drawn from it, the same would be against the petitioner as he is seeking the benefit of OBC status.
7. In the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others (2012) 1 SCC 113) relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant, the appellant who possessed a degree of Bachelor of Engineering (BE) was appointed as Field Officer by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, respondent No. 2 in the appeal against a Post reserved for ST on probation w.e.f. 16-3-1998. The appointment was subject to production of caste validity certificate. On failure of the applicant to produce such certificate, respondent No.2 issued a notice of termination of his service. In terms of the order dated 2.12.2003 passed in WP No. 4688/2003 filed by the appellant before High Court of Judicature at Bombay, respondent No. 1 was directed to decide the caste claim of the appellant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Respondent No. 2 was restrained from acting upon the termination notice. In terms of an order dated 20.03.2004, the Caste Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the appellant did not belong to Halbi Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate issued by the competent authority viz. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pusad, District OA 2089/2011 Yavatmal was thus cancelled and confiscated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Paras 6 and 11 of the judgment read as under:-
6. A copy of the report of Vigilance Cell was supplied to the appellant by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and personal hearing was also granted. By order dated 20th March, 2004, the Caste Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the appellant does not belong to `Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority, viz. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal, was thus, cancelled and confiscated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, inter alia observing as follows:-
"B. The documents quoted at Sr. No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 26, 28 & 33 are school records in respect of relative of the candidate in which Caste is recorded as Halbi. In view of enquiry report, documents collected by enquiry office and affinity test these documents are rejected.
G. The document quoted at Sr. No.17,19,21, 22, 23, 24 & 34 are the Xerox copies of validity certificates in respect of relatives of the candidate. The ratio of this Validity Certificate cannot be given to the candidate because the concerned person at that time may have deliberately suppressed to bring information now found out by the Inquiry Officer. Thus where there is material suppression of facts, ratio of such order cannot be applied to other. As directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, each and every case should be decided on its own. Hence in the light of Vigilance Cell Report, this document is rejected.
xxxxx xxxxx
11. The candidate's mother tongue is Marathi which is not so in Halbi, Scheduled Tribe. The Surnames of relatives from their community are reported as Katole, Parate, Naike, Dhakte, Sorate, Nandarwar, Kumbhare etc. These surnames are not associated with the people belonging to Halbi, Scheduled Tribe. The information about family & community deities do not resemble with Halbi, Scheduled Tribe. The marital ceremonies, ceremonies observed after birth, rites performed after death, customary dances, great personalities within their community etc. as stated do not resemble with that of Halbi, Scheduled Tribe. Thus, in view of this information, candidate failed to establish his affinity towards Halbi Scheduled Tribe."
Questioning the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee, appellant had once again approached Honble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1687/2004. In the said Writ Petition the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee was upheld. It was in these circumstances, the appellant had filed Civil Appeal No. 6340/2004 before Honble Supreme Court decided OA 2089/2011 on 8.11.2011. In the said case, Honble Supreme Court viewed that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant was not examined and appreciated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in proper prospective and the High Court laid undue stress on the affinity test. Taking such view, Honble Supreme Court set asided the decision of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant rule. Thus, the issue in the said case, i.e. whether appellant belonged to Halbi ST or not, i.e. different from the issue involved in the present case. In Hari Singh Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors (WP (C) No. 11928/2009), the parent department of the petitioner, i.e. CRPF, after verifying his service record issued a certificate acknowledging him as a departmental OBC candidate. The said service certificate was also annexed with the application form submitted by him claiming age relaxation. In the said case taking note of the judgments in the case of Tej Pal Singh and Anr. (supra) and Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr Vs. Poonam Chauhan (152(2008) DLT 224 (DB), Honble Delhi High Court viewed as under:
47. The prescription in the public notice in question that the closing date for receipt of application would be treated as the date of reckoning of OBC status of the candidate and also for ascertaining that the candidate does not fall in the creamy layer, in our view, is a prescription evolved for the benefit of the candidates belonging to OBC category and not for the purpose of ousting them from the benefit of reservation. What the NOTE under Clause 4(B) (set out in para 5 above) provides is that, if a candidate is certified as being an OBC category candidate not falling within the creamy layer prior to the close of the date of submission of applications ( i.e. 14.09.2007 in this case) then the candidate would be treated as an OBC candidate not falling in the creamy layer for the purpose for the purpose of the examination in question, and the issue that the candidate may have come into the creamy layer subsequently, i.e. after the date of closing, would not be relevant or gone into to deny the benefit of reservation to such a candidate.
xxx xxx xxx
51. Though it is true that the express provision contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 as extracted above from Chapter II of Swamys Compilation on Reservations and Concessions for
OA 2089/2011
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, may not per se be applicable to OBC category candidates, there is no rationale for not extending the same to the OBC category candidates as well. Historically, reservations for the SC and ST candidates have been in existence for a much longer period, whereas reservations, for the Other Backward Classes have been introduced only after the framing of the Mandal Commission Report. Therefore, government rules and instructions which were framed for SC and ST category candidates prior to the coming into force of the law granting reservation to OBC category candidates, could possibly not have provided for similar treatment to the cases of Other Backward Classes. It is for this reason that paragraphs 3 and 4, as aforesaid, does not deal with candidates belonging to the OBC category. Otherwise, there appears to be no rationale or justification for limiting the benefit of the said Government instructions to the SC and SDT candidates, and not extending the same to the OBC category candidates as well. As a matter of fact, the Note II extracted in para 7 above embodies the same approach as is found in paras 3 and 4 of Chapter II of Swamys Compilation above referred to. However, we make it clear that we are not holding that paras 3 & 4 of the said Swamys Compilation would per se apply to cases of OBC candidates as well. That would be a policy decision for the Competent Authority to take. We would, however, observe that the logical and rational step for the Competent Authority to take would be to extend the application of the procedure devised in the said paragraphs to the OBC category candidates as well. In the present case, the applicant had not enclosed any kind of certificate along with the application to establish his OBC status. In DSSSB & Anr Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya and Ors and (WP ( C ) No 8087/2011 decided on 24.1.2012)), the five respondents had approached Honble Delhi High Court by way of WP ( C) No. 382/2009 seeking issuance of direction to DSSSB to accept their OBC certificates submitted by them for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi after the cut off date. In the said case, the last date for submitting the application was 21.1.2008. Though the respondents were allowed to participate in the selection process, but they were not included in list for the reason that they had not submitted OBC certificate along with their application forms. Finding their claim covered OA 2089/2011 by the judgment in WP (C) No.9112/2008 titled Ms. Pushpa Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Honble Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition 382/2009 filed by the respondents. Against said judgment DSSSB filed LPA No. 562/2011. In an OA 2427/2010 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before this Tribunal, this Tribunal declined the relief claimed by applicant. Questioning the order so passed by this Tribunal on 29.04.2011, the petitioners/applicants filed WP (C) 8087/2011. Finding the controversy in the Writ Petition being the same as in LPA No. 562/2011, a Division Bench of Honble High Court of Delhi considered the same along with the LPA No. 562/2011. In the judgment dated 24.01.2012 passed in aforementioned LPA and WP (C), Honble Delhi High Court ruled that it is well nigh possible that a number of other OBC candidates, though otherwise eligible but not in possession of the OBC certificate by the cut off date could not have applied under the belief that they were required to enclose the caste certificate along with the application and the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement were intended to guide/instruct the prospective applicants and there is no reason to delude the same. Honble High Court further viewed that it would be loathe to issue mandamus/directive contrary to the terms of selection. Paras 19 to 21 of the judgment read as under:-
19. Else, what has been observed by us qua qualification, equally applies to submission of OBC Certificate also. It is well-nigh possible that a number of other OBC candidates, though otherwise eligible but not in possession of the OBC Certificate by the cut off date, did not apply under the belief that being required to enclose the OBC Certificate along with the application and being not in possession thereof, their applications would be deficient and not entertainable. It is yet further possible that, had such others applied and competed, the respondents in appeal and/or the LPA 562/2011 & W.P.(C) 8087/2011 Page 16 of 18 petitioner in the writ petition may not have been eligible. The respondents in appeal OA 2089/2011 and the petitioner in the writ petition were clearly in the know that their applications were incomplete and took a chance. This Court cannot lay down a law which would encourage such practices. The terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement were intended, to guide/instruct the prospective applicants and there is no reason to dilute the same. Even otherwise, this Court would be loathe to issue mandamus/directive contrary to the terms of selection/appointment (see Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashrafulla Khan (2002) 2 SCC 560, FCI Vs. Ram Kesh Yadav (2007) 9 SCC 531, Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur JT 2010 (7) SC 179 and State of West Bengal Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee (2010) 11 SCC 694).
20. As far as the case of the respondent no.1 in appeal who had applied for OBC Certificate ten days before the cut off date is concerned, we are unable to find the same at par with Ms. Pushpa. In Ms. Pushpa, the application for OBC Certificate had been filed much prior to the date of advertisement. The advertisement in the present case as per the LPA 562/2011 & W.P.(C) 8087/2011 Page 17 of 18 respondents was published on 30th August, 2007 and the respondent no.1 applied for OBC Certificate barely ten days prior to the cut off date. No case of the said respondent no.1 being not at fault also is thus made out.
21. We therefore are unable to agree with the order of the learned Single Judge challenged in appeal and set aside the same. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Axiomatically, we are in agreement with the order of the Tribunal challenged in the writ petition and dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs. The issue raised in the present Original Application is squarely covered by the view taken by the aforementioned judgment of Honble Delhi High Court dated 24.01.2012. The judgment in case of Hari Singh Vs. Staff Selection Commission is distinguishable on the facts for the reason that in the said case, the petitioner had enclosed a service certificate with his application in which his status as departmental OBC candidate was acknowledged. It is not so in the present case. The decision in the case of Tej Pal Singh and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr and Hari Singh Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors (supra) were noted and OA 2089/2011 dealt with in judgment dated 24.01.2012 (Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya and Ors) as follows:-
17. On the contrary, the advertisement in the appeal as well as the writ petition clearly provided that the certificates of belonging to OBC category had to be filed along with the application by the cut off date. We, therefore, are of the opinion that what was held in Tej Pal Singh qua the status as SC/ST and in the context of language of the advertisement in that case would not apply to the present cases concerning OBCs and in view of the unambiguous language of the advertisements inviting applications in the present cases. Inspite of judgment of Coordinate Bench in Anu Devi supra, need is not felt to refer the matter to a larger Bench because the judgment in Anu Devi turned on, firstly the appointing authority in that case, notwithstanding the cut off date, having issued notices demanding the certificates thereby extending the cut off date and secondly on this Court LPA 562/2011 & W.P.(C) 8087/2011 Page 14 of 18 exercising the discretion under Article 226 in refusing to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in that case. We are however consciously distinguishing Tej Pal Singh (supra). We may also notice that our Brother who has authored the judgment in Anu Devi had earlier, sitting singly in judgment dated 13.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No.10257/2009 titled Abhishek Saini Vs. University of Delhi held that the action of the University in not permitting the petitioner in that case to participate in the selection process on account of non-production of OBC certificate by the date stipulated in the Bulletin of Information and which was mandatory cannot be faulted with. Mention may also be made of Hari Singh Vs. Staff OA 2089/2011 Selection Commission 170 (2010) DLT 262 where another Division Bench notwithstanding the OBC certificate having not been filed by the stipulated date and following Tej Pal held a case for making provisional admission to have been made out but again in the peculiar facts of that case and accepting the explanation for non-submission thereof.
Thus as on date, the law declared by Honble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 562/2011 (DSSSB and Anr Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya and Ors) holds the field, i.e. in the absence of certificate authenticating the OBC status of an OBC candidate of a date prior to the last date of submission of application for a particular post, a candidate can be denied the benefit of such status. In the present case, admittedly as stated by respondents, OBC candidates seeking benefit of reservation were required to submit certificate issued by the competent authority of Government of NCT of Delhi along with the application form as was the position in the case of DSSSB and Anr. Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya and Ors. (supra). The averment made in Para 4 of the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 has not been specifically denied by the applicant.
8. In view of aforementioned judgment of Honble Delhi High Court dated 24.01.2012, it is held that in order to claim benefit of OBC status, the applicant was required to enclose a valid certificate authenticating his such status along with application form and in any case, such certificate should have been of a date prior to the last date for submission of the application for the post of Driver. However we cannot ignore the fact that 169 candidates whose result was originally withheld were allowed to complete the documents etc and their result was finally notified on 17.02.2012. In case any of the candidates declared selected in OA 2089/2011 terms of said notice is given benefit of OBC certificate procured after 2.12.2009, the applicant would also be entitled to same benefit.
OA stands disposed of. No costs.
( A.K.Bhardwaj) ( Sudhir Kumar ) Member (J) Member (A) sk