Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Kamal Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 12 April, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-353/2012
Reserved on : 21.03.2013.
Pronounced on :12.04.2013.
Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Kamal Kumar,
S/o Sh. Chhaju Ram Yadav,
R/o H.No. 84, Masjit 64 Khamba,
Mir Dard Road, Behind G.B. Pant
Hospital, New Delhi-2. . Applicant
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through:
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board through its Secretary,
3rd Floor, UTCS Building,
Institutional Area,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-32.
3. The Director,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. B.N.P. Pathak, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) To direct the respondents to declare the applicant as selected candidate for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse (Post Code No. 77/2009) as illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Staff Nurse with all consequential benefits.
To allow the OA with costs.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant had responded to an advertisement issued in the Employment News by the respondents for making recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse (Post Code No. 77/2009) in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi. The applicant had applied as an OBC candidate. He was issued Roll No. and asked to appear in the written examination held on 30.05.2010. The respondents declared the result of the exam on 27.01.2011 as per the merit of the written examination. The applicant was declared successful in the written exam as he had secured more marks than the cut off marks prescribed for the OBC category but his case was kept in abeyance by observing pending verification. The applicant enquired from the respondents the reasons for keeping his case pending. He was told that his OBC certificate was being verified. On 04.07.2011 the respondents declared the result of other candidates whose eligibility was being ascertained but the name of the applicant was not included in the said supplementary list also. Hence the applicant approached the respondents again but no reasons for such action were given. After repeated requests, the applicant was told that he had annexed domicile certificate from Rajasthan in another examination held for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in the Institute of Human Behavior and Allied Sciences. Therefore, his case was being verified. Despite repeated assurances given by the respondents, applicant has not been given appointment. Hence, he has preferred this O.A. before us.
3. The applicants counsel argued that the applicant had secured more marks than the last appointed candidate, hence denial of appointment to him is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He argued that applicant fulfills all the eligibility conditions of the advertisement. Further, since he is a permanent resident of Delhi, he cannot be discriminated in any manner vis-`-vis other OBC candidates of Delhi. Thus, there appears to be no reason for ignoring the claim of the applicant. The applicant has annexed with his application form OBC certificate issued from Government of NCT of Delhi shown him OBC of Delhi. This certificate was also submitted on time and there is no reason for the respondents in not believing this and ignoring it. The applicant claimed that his case is covered by the order of this Tribunal in OA-2372/2010 and OA-2171/2009 with OA-2170/2009.
4. The respondents in their reply have not disputed that the applicant had applied for the post of Staff Nurse in response to the advertisement issued for Post Code No. 77/2009. However, according to them he had also applied for Staff Nurse in the Institute of Human Behavior and Allied Sciences under the Post Code No. 04/2009. Further, that while in the Post Code No. 04/2009 he had applied in UR category, for the Post Code No. 77/2009 he has applied in OBC category. For the Post Code No. 04/2009 along with his application he submitted domicile certificate bearing No. 3656 dated 23.09.1997 issued from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Jhunjhun which confirms the fact that he is a resident of village Nagalia Dhudhwa of Distt. Jhunjhun, Rajasthan. For Post Code No. 77/2009, the applicant has submitted an OBC certificate bearing No. OBC/04/42/11011/10/8/2009/9421002164 dated 24.08.2009 issued from the Executive Magistrate, GT Road, Seelampur, Delhi along with Employment Card with Registration No. 2010102128 dated 27.01.2010 issued from the Directorate of Employment, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in addition to the domicile certificate mentioned earlier. From this, it is clear that the OBC certificate issued to him was not in accordance with the instructions of Government of NCT of Delhi because as per Notification No. F.28(93)/91-92/SC/ST/P&S/4384, the Yadav community was recognized as a backward class as per the Government of NCT of Delhi on 20.01.1995 and, therefore, OBC certificate can be issued only to those who have been residing in Delhi prior to this date. As per domicile certificate submitted by him and also as per other particulars furnished by the applicant in his form he was a resident of Rajasthan. It is clear that he was born and brought up in Rajasthan, received his education in Rajasthan except GNM course which he has done from Karnataka. The experience certificate issued to him also shows that he worked at Yadav Children Hospital, Mahindra Garh Road, Narnol in Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 31.01.2006. Consequently, it cannot be said that he was a permanent resident of Delhi from or before 20.01.1995. Therefore, it appears that the OBC certificate has been obtained by the applicant by furnishing false information. The respondents have further stated that in Post Code No. 04/2009 he himself claimed to be a bona fide resident of village in Jhunjhun but changed his stand in less than a year by enclosing an OBC certificate dated 24.08.009. The respondents have stated that keeping in view the above facts, the candidature of the applicant was not found to be genuine and he was not recommended for selection.
5. We have heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.
6. We are inclined to agree with the respondents that there is contradiction in the information submitted by the candidate regarding his residency. This makes the OBC certificate submitted by him unreliable.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the case of the applicant was covered by the judgments of the Tribunal in OA Nos. 2171/2009 with 2170/2009 as well as OA-2372/2010. We have gone through those judgments and found that they are not applicable to this case. In OA-2171/2009 with OA-2170/2009 the issue involved was the date on which the certificate was furnished by the applicant whereas in the instant case there was no dispute that the applicant had submitted a certificate on time but that was not found to be reliable. In OA-2372/2010 the applicant was not given detailed judgment but was found to be covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in OA-2171/2009 with OA-2170/2009. Thus, this O.A. is also not applicable in the instant case.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 5419/2012 decided on 31.08.2012. We have gone through that case also. In that the issue was consideration of candidature of the applicant for appointment to Central Para Military Forces. In that case the applicant was also a permanent resident of Delhi undisputedly. Thus, that case was also different from the instant case.
9. On the other hand, the respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-3557/2011 delivered on 09.08.2012. In that case the applicant had applied for the post of Staff Nurse and had also been selected in the written examination. However, he was found to have produced two OBC certificates, one from Rajasthan and the other from Delhi. Thus, it was held that the applicant had submitted a false document to secure employment and his candidature was therefore rejected. We find that the case of the applicant is similar and covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in that O.A.
10. Accordingly, we find that there is no merit in the contention of the applicant. The respondents were justified in denying the appointment to the applicant. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /vinita/