Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anu Devi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Through ... on 17 July, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.370/2009 New Delhi this the 17th day of July, 2009. Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Anu Devi, D/o Sh. Azad Singh, RZ-115, Lokesh Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi-43. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri Yashpal Singh Rangi) -Versus- Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its: 1. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Chandani Chowk, Delhi-110006. 2. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Vijay Pandita) O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Being aggrieved by non-declaration of result by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and also non-selection for the post of Teacher (Primary) with consequences the applicant states that though she was an OBC candidate and had applied for the certificate on 4.10.2007 with Govt. of NCT of Delhi, i.e., much before the last date of submission of application form for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD on 31.10.2007, yet the certificate was issued to her on 5.11.2007. As such her candidature has not been processed.
2. Learned counsel would contend that the claim of applicant has been squarely covered by a decision of the High Court of Delhi of a single Bench in WPC No.8508/2007 dated 2.2.2009, wherein the following observations have been made:
The issue is no more respondent (sic-res) integra as in the case of Tej Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in 120 (2005) DLT 117 this Court has already taken a view that the candidates who belong to SC and ST categories but could not file certificate in proof of the same could not have been rejected simply on account of the late submission of the certificates and submission of such certificates cannot be made pre-condition for accepting the application forms. Mr. Sunil Sharma appearing for the respondent has urged that the relief in the said judgment is only the SC& ST category and not to OBC category and therefore the respondents have rightly not considered the application of the petitioner against the OBC category. I do not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the respondent. As the petitioner who belongs to OBC category she cannot be denied the right to be considered for appointment to the said post under the OBC category once there is no dispute that she belongs to OBC Category. Admittedly, there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner who had applied to obtain the said certificate in the OBC Category much prior to the date of the advertisement and she cannot be made to suffer simply on account of the fact that the authorities have taken considerable time in making available the OBC certificate. Considering the merit of Tejpal Singh judgment, I extend the benefit of OBC category to the petitioner. The respondents are directed accordingly to consider the application of the petitioner against the OBC category within a period of one month and accordingly announce the result taking into view the relaxation whatever available to the OBC candidates.
With these directions the petition is disposed of.
3. Learned counsel would contend that applicant being squarely covered by the decision of the High Court (supra) is entitled to be appointed to the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD on declaration of her result.
4. On the other hand, respondents counsel vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that applicant, who could not produce the OBC certificate as on the cut off date, i.e., 29.10.2007, therefore, being ineligible is not entitled to be appointed as per the trite law. It is also stated that as per Section 92 A of DMC Act, the respondents have to make selection after due verification on the basis of selection lists furnished by DSSSB. As the applicant did not possess the OBC certificate on the last date, she is not eligible to be appointed.
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. Unlike SC/ST an OBC is not a backward class since birth but as a fall out of the Mandal Commissions report and the central list issued by the Government as per Article 340 of the Constitution of India and Department of Personnel & Training OM of 13.1.1995, 27% of the vacancies in civil posts under direct recruitment quota are to be reserved for OBC and a methodology has been given vide Department of Personnel & Training OM dated 15.11.1993 that a certificate to be produced by the OBC candidate regarding creamy layer etc. Applicant, whose caste has been included in the central list long back before advertisement was issued by the respondents had applied for an OBC certificate, which was ultimately issued to her on 5.11.2007. In our considered view, the decision of the High Court of Delhi on all fours covers the present issue, as the applicant was an OBC candidate on the date of the advertisement and delay in issuance of the certificate is not attributed to her. It is stated that even after few days, i.e., from 29.10.2007 the certificate was submitted on 5.11.2007 respondents cannot deny reservation and other relaxation to the applicant on account of her not being an OBC on the last date. A certificate only acknowledges the status already conferred upon applicant as an OBC by inclusion of her caste in the central list and is a declaration to this effect, which would relate back. The issue of cut off date, as propagated by Shri Vijay Pandita, learned counsel of respondents may hold good for educational qualifications but would not apply in case of a caste certificate. Moreover, the distinction drawn by the learned counsel of respondents between the caste certificate issued to SC/ST and OBC is highly imaginary, as status of both emanates from a back date when on the basis of the report of the Mandal Commission the central list for OBC includes the caste of applicant as an OBC.
6. Accordingly, OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the applicant and to process her case for appointment as Teacher (Primary) with all benefits, as admissible in law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.