Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Aarti Lamba vs Govt. Of Nctd on 7 January, 2025
1
C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A./916/2019
Order reserved on: 02.12.2024
Order pronounced on: 07.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Aarti Lamba,
D/o Sh. Inder Mohan Lamba
R/o D-122, D-Block, Madhu Vihar,
Near Dwarka, New Delhi-110059 ...Applicant
(Through Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-92
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director
(GNCT of Delhi)
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054 ... Respondents
(Through Ms. Monika Bhargava for Mr.Amit Yadav and Ms.
Deepika, Advocates)
2
C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The present OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"8.a) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant as OBC candidate instead of UR and further appoint her to the post of TGT (Computer Science) post code 192/14 as per her merit position and
b) Accord all consequential benefits.
c) Award costs of the proceedings; and
d) Pass any order/relief/directions as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as follows:
2.1 The respondent-DSSSB issued advertisement during the year 2014 (Advertisement No.1/14) inviting applications for 2026 vacancies of TGT Computer Science (Post Code 192/14), out of which 547 vacancies were reserved for the OBC category. The applicant as per his claim belongs to the OBC category. However, as she was not having the OBC certificate at the time of applying, she applied under unreserved (UR) category. The last date for submitting the applications was 27.02.2014. The examinations were conducted by DSSSB on 21.05.2017 and the results were declared on 13.07.2017. The applicant scored 83.50 marks 3 C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019 whereas the cut-off for OBC category was 68.6 marks. The applicant subsequently obtained an OBC certificate No.90500000315378 dated 29.08.2017 issued by the GNCT, Delhi. The final results were declared in September, 2017.
The applicant could not find her name among the selected candidates. As she has already procured the OBC certificate, she submitted a representation to the respondents on 27.03.2018 for considering her as an OBC candidate. This was followed by another representation on 13.05.2018. As the respondents did not respond to her representations, she has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
4. Submission by learned counsel for the applicant. 4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the facts of the present case and he would contend that 547 vacancies under OBC Category have been advertised, however, at the time of shortlisting only 407 OBC candidates have uploaded their dossiers. He would contend that at least 140 vacancies were available as many shortlisted candidates did not join at all. Admittedly, learned counsel for the applicant fairly states that at the time of 4 C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019 filling up of the application form, there was a non-discloser on the part of the applicant as regards her falling under OBC Category. However, the reason for not mentioning the category is that she is very poor and her financial condition is not stable, even the parents of the applicant are not educated. Above all, she was not even aware of the benefits available to the OBC Category.
4.2 It is seen from the records that the OBC Certificate which has been placed on record annexed at page no. 74 was issued on 29.08.2017 and it is admitted fact that the aforesaid advertisement was issued in 2014, and the closing date of filling up of the application form was also in 2014. 4.3 Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon two case laws in support of the case of the applicant. Firstly, on the case of Dr. M. Amritha v/s National Board of Examinations (NBE) and Ors. in WP No. 3167 of 2018 dated 13.02.2018, and secondly, he relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in the case of M. Palanimurugananthan v/s The Directorate General CRPF and Ors. in WP No. 14323 of 2020 decided on 14.10.2022.
5. Submission by learned counsel for the respondents. 5.1 Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 relies upon the averments contained 5 C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019 in the counter affidavit stating that even the OBC Certificate is obtained much after the date of publication/declaration of the final result and the appointments made thereto. Thus, at this stage, no change of category is permissible, as there is neither any law nor any rule or instructions supporting the claim of the applicant.
Analysis
6. We have heard both the counsels carefully and perused the records thoroughly.
6.1 The short issue is whether the applicant is entitled to be considered as an OBC candidate because there are unfilled vacancies under OBC category, despite the fact that she did not apply under OBC category, but on subsequent date she procured an OBC certificate.
6.2 It has been fairly admitted by the applicant and her counsel during arguments that the applicant submitted her application under UR category. She procured the OBC certificate on 29.08.2017, well after the stipulated date of filing the application (which closed on 27.02.2014). Once, the applicant filled UR category, she was considered as UR and she could not secure the cut-off for UR category. Subsequent submission of OBC certificate has no bearing. 6.3 The task of completing the selection within a time bound manner is sine qua non of the transparency, 6 C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019 efficiency and effective manner of selection for which the DSSSB thrives to attend.
In the instant case, the present applicant did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the recruitment process and the system boundary set by the DSSSB and hence, not entitled to the benefit of the reservation under OBC-NCL category. Once the applicant has subjected to the process and system boundary set up by DSSSB, the applicant was bound by the system conditionalities. The right to reservation is not an unrestricted right to be exercised by the candidates at their own sweet will whenever they prefer to do so. To get the benefit of the reservation, the applicant has to exercise the option in the right manner at the right time within the set principles or system boundaries set up by the authorities (in this case DSSSB).
6.4 The counsel for the applicant had argued that the present applicant could not procure the requisite OBC certificate prior to the stipulated date due to personal reasons and hence she could not submit/ upload the same in time. The counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is born OBC, she is OBC and will remain as OBC. 6.5 The cut-off date set by the Rules or the advertisement for the recruitment is sacrosanct. It is not out of place to cite the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High 7 C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019 Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P., 2017 SCC online 1286 where reference has been made to Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262, Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153 and State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 and Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2015 Allahabad 161. In all these judgments, it has been held that cut-off date for eligibility is sacrosanct. Granting any benefit to the applicant for submission of legitimate documents after the due date would be violative of the doctrine of equality as enshrined in our Constitution. In Rajendra Patel (supra), it was held:
"When the Commission holds public examinations on such large scale, candidates must be clearly aware of the fact that it is not open to a candidate to decide as to when an application should be submitted and compliance with the time schedule which has been indicated is mandatory. If this is not read to be mandatory, the entire process of holding an examination would stand dislocated. If no last date for the receipt of the hard copy of the application with the documents were to be provided for the issue which would arise would be until when would the Commission be required to consider the application submitted. Should this be until the examination is held or should this continue until the date fixed for the holding of the interview? These aspects cannot be left in uncertainty more so at the individual discretion of candidates."
6.6 When the date is fixed for the candidates to furnish the legitimate documents, entertaining such claims after the due date or even after the declaration of the final selection, would dislocate the selection/examination process and it would render the process which is conducted by the DSSSB 8 C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019 in a perpetual state of uncertainty. In Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad, AIR 1999 SC 3558 it was held that: "It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner." The advertisement by DSSSB provided that the legitimate OBC certificate was to be uploaded/ submitted by a stipulated date. It was valid for all candidates and the present applicant should have adhered to the provision for these Rules.
Conclusion
7. In the instant case there was no power to relax any condition in favour of any candidate who had not furnished the legitimate certificate in time as this would have violated the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been rightly held that: "even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement." 7.1 The DSSSB performs the onerous task of conducting the recruitment examinations/tests in which lakhs of candidates appear every year. By demanding relaxation of set norms because of the negligent or other attitude of the candidates will open up the pandora box and it would lead 9 C-4/Item-55 OA-916/2019 to not only uncertainty but it will upstage the entire schedule of the recruitment process.
7.2 In view of the aforesaid reasoning spelled out in paragraphs 6.1 to 7.1, we find no merit in the present OA and accordingly it is dismissed.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dkm/