Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Preeta vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 25 August, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI
O.A. NO.307/2010
New Delhi, this the 25th day of August, 2010
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SHANKER RAJU, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A)
Ms. Preeta,
D/o Shri Bishamber Dayal,
W/o Shri Mehtab Singh,
R/o H.No. 198, Narsi Bhawan,
V.P.O. Kakrala,
New Delhi 110 078
Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate service Selection Board,
Through its Chairman,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
New Delhi
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
I.P. Estate,
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi
Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R.K. Shukla for Shri T.N. Tripathi for R-1
Ms. Sumedha Sharma for R-2)
O
R D E R
By Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A):
The applicant, who had participated in a selection process initiated in the year 2007 for the post of Assistant Teacher/Teacher (Primary) under the MCD/GNCTD, is aggrieved at her non-appointment to the post. This is on the ground of the applicant having been found inadmissible in the OBC category. Further as per the averments in the OA this ineligibility is on account of late submission of the OBC Certificate by the applicant. As revealed through an application under the RTI Act, the non-selection is despite the applicants securing higher marks than the last selected candidate in the OBC category i.e 101 as against 86 out of 200 marks.
The OA seeks a declaration of the denial of selection and appointment as illegal. Besides a direction to the respondents for offering appointment to the applicant to the post of Assistant Teacher/ Teacher (Primary) in OBC category with all consequential benefits has been prayed. On the prayer for interim relief, directions have been issued by the Tribunal for keeping one post of Assistant Teacher/Teacher (Primary) in the OBC category.
2. On behalf of the respondents a short affidavit has been filed by the MCD (Res-1) and a detailed counter affidavit by respondents 2 and 3 i.e. DSSSB and GNCTD. For the applicant, the learned counsel, Shri Ajesh Luthra, for respondent no.1 the learned proxy counsel, Shri R.K. Shukla and for respondents 2 and 3, the learned counsel Ms. Sumedha Sharma would appear before us. The present order is being passed after considering the submissions by the learned counsels and carefully considering the material on record and the law on the subject.
3.1 The brief facts are that the DSSSB vide its advertisement Nos. 07/08 and 08/08 had advertised vacancies for the posts of Teacher (Primary)/Assistant Teacher with the Post Codes 164/07 and 165/07 under the GNCTD and the MCD respectively. As per the applicant, she had applied under the Post Code 164/07. However, the same was a combined selection process and the records reveal about the applicant having been considered under both the combined post codes 164 and 165/07.
3.2 In her application form, the applicant had indicated her category as OBC, though the relevant Certificate had not been enclosed along with the application form, the last date for submission of the same was 29.10.2007. The Counter Affidavit by the DSSSB (Res-2) states that as per the practice followed by the Board, all the applicants are allowed to participate in the selection process as per their own submissions and the scrutiny is done only at the time of declaration of final results.
A common examination for MCD and GNCTD had been conducted in June 2008 in which the applicant had participated.
3.3 Vide their communication dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure A/1), the DSSSB had intimated the applicant regarding her application lacking certain Vital Information Documents; as a result the scrutiny of her application for determining eligibility for the post was stated to have been pending. Therefore, she was requested to contact/submit the authorities with the OBC certificate on or latest by 21.11.2008 to remove the deficiency. It was also stated that on her satisfying the eligibility conditions and terms and conditions of the advertisement, her case would be considered for the post.
Para 4.6 of the OA avers about having submitted the OBC Certificate on 21.11.2008 as stipulated by the respondents in this letter. In their para-wise reply, this factual contention has not been rebutted by the Respondent no.2.
3.4 A copy of the relevant certificate is enclosed with the OA as Annexure A/3. It reveals that the applicant had applied for the same on 6.11.2007 and the certificate had been issued on 29.11.2007. As per the competent authority of GNCTD, the applicant belonged to JAT Community which has been recognized as OBC vide Notification dated 20.1.1995. Further it was stated that the applicant or her family had ordinarily resided at the address specified under the Union Territory of Delhi. It was also stated in the certificate that the applicant had not belonged to the Creamy Layer as per the DoP&T OM dated 8.9.1993.
3.5 The OA submits that when the applicant had not received any offer for appointment unlike others, on an application dated 16.12.2009 under the RTI Act, the DSSSB vide its letter dted 5.1.2010 had disclosed about her having secured 101 out of 200 marks as against 86 marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the OBC category. As the reason for non-selection, it was stated that the applicant had not been found eligible for admissibility in the OBC category.
This has occasioned the present OA.
4.1 On behalf of the applicant several factual as well as legal pleas have been taken. In the factual pleas, it is submitted that the applicant belongs to JAT Community which stood notified as a Backward Class under the Union Territory of Delhi vide a Notification in 1995, which was much prior to the selection process. Further the fact of her belonging to OBC category having indicated in the application form and the DSSSB calling her to submit the OBC Certificate for removal of deficiency in this respect and her compliance with the said direction within the stipulated time have also been averred. It is further stated that the applicant, who had appeared in the selection, had been duly selected under the OBC category to which she belonged.
4.2 By way of legal grounds, it is averred that OBC Certificate is not treated as an educational or any other kind of qualification determining the eligibility to the post. On the other hand, it is to be treated for the purposes of relaxation and concessions in public employment. It is further stated that the OBC certificate issued by the competent authority is only an affirmation of the fact which is already in existence. To reinforce this point, the observations of the Honble Delhi High Court in Tejpal Singh & Ors vs GNCT of Delhi {120 (2005) DLT 117} have also been adverted to. On all these grounds, the impugned action of the respondents is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4.3 In support of the claims in the OA reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Honble Delhi High Court in favour of candidates in similar circumstances in CWP No.18221/2006 Pradeep Kumar vs The Chairman, DSSSB decided on 12.2.2009. Also the decision in CWP No.548/2008 GNCT of Delhi & Ors vs Poonam Chauhan decided on 9.7.2008 upholding the decision of the Tribunal in OA No.449/2007 has been relied upon. Further the action of the respondents is stated to be contrary to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs Satyanarayan Sheohare & Anr {2009 (2) K&S 265}. The learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajesh Luthra would also in course of oral submissions make a reference to the decision of the Delhi High Court in WPC No. 4122/1999 decided on 24.3.2005 Sunita vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Further reliance would be placed by the learned counsel on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal (Principal Bench) in OA No.1059/2008 (Ajay Kumar vs Union of India & Ors) decided on 6.1.2010.
5.1 On behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection of the claim in the OA being barred by limitation and delay and latches has been raised on the ground that the claim pertained to a selection process in which the last date for submission of application was 29.10.2007. It is also submitted on behalf of the DSSSB (Respdt. No.2) about the recruitment under Post Codes 164 and 165/07 having been finalized by the Board on 17.4.2009 and unfilled vacancies having been intimated to the user department which had been re-advertised. It has also been stated that in case of Teachers (Primary), the Board had even declared results even on the basis of the subsequent advertisement.
Even though the selection process in this case had been initiated in June 2007, examination conducted in 2008 and the applicant asked to remove the deficiency in November 2008; the reason for non-selection of the applicant despite her securing higher marks than the last selected candidates in the OBC category had come to her knowledge only vide the DSSSBs letter dated 5.1.2010. The OA in this case has been filed on 27.1.2010. Considering the facts of the case, particularly the facts that the applicant had admittedly scored much higher marks than the last OBC candidate, the category under which she had applied and had been considered by the DSSSB, with a view to ensure substantive justice, we find the objection raised by the respondents as hyper-technical and, therefore, not acceptable.
5.2 Likewise the plea taken in the Counter Affidavit filed by the MCD that as per her own application, the applicant having applied under Post Code 164/07 which had pertained to the post of Teacher(Primary) under the GNCTD and therefore, the present case not being maintainable against MCD: the same is also not found to be as deserving any serious consideration in view of the communication dated 17.11.2008 as well as 5.1.2010 from the DSSSB referring to the candidature of the applicant under the combined post codes 164/07 and 165/07.
6.1 The main stand reiterated by the official respondents is about there being a clear and unambiguous stipulation in the advertisement with regard to the three conditions for claiming benefit under the OBC category i.e. the Certificate being in the prescribed format from the competent authority of GNCTD; its submission along with the application form; and determining date for this purpose being 29.10.2007. To support this contention, the CA by Respondents 2 and 3 contains detailed extracts from the advertisement, the relevant portions from which are being reproduced as here under:
SECTION-1 (1) xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx APPLICANTS ARE ADVISED TO NOTE:
(1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx OBC candidates seeking benefit of reservation should submit OBC certificate issued by the competent authority of Government of NCT of Delhi. All other OBC candidates with certicates issued from out side Delhi will be considered for the unreserved category if eligible otherwise.
The Educational Qualification, age, experience and other conditions of eligibility as stipulated above shall be determined on the closing date of receipt of application i.e. 29.10.2007.
SECTION-C DOCUMENTS TO BE ATTACHED WITH APPLCIATION FORM:
Community/Category Certificate/Physically Handicapped/ Ex-Servicemen certificate/Govt. Employees certificate issued by notified/competent authority, if benefit claimed under any of the above categories.
It is the stand of the Respondents 2 and 3 that for maintaining transparency and impartiality in the selection process, the terms and conditions regarding submission of the OBC Certificate had been clearly stipulated in the advertisement and as per the well settled norms these are binding on the recruiting agency as well as the prospective candidates.
6.2 It is further stated that only those candidates had been considered who had been in possession of the OBC Certificate issued by the GNCTD and had enclosed the certificates with their application forms before the cut off date of submitting the applications. It is also stated that this decision had been followed uniformly. As regards the applicant, it is stated that since she did not possess the necessary certificate as on the last date of receipt of the application form, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement the DSSSB had considered her candidature under the UR category in which her merit being below than the last cut off marks, she had not been selected (paras 8, 10 and 12 of CA by MCD).
The respondents have also contended that allowing the claims in the OA would amount to discrimination against all these candidates, who though being similarly, had not applied considering the stipulations in the advertisement regarding the OBC certificate.
As regards the subsequent communication of 17.11.2008, the same is stated to have been sent by way of abundant caution, without in any way affecting the basic issue of ineligibility of the applicant.
6.3 The DSSSB in their CA has also mentioned about having made a reference to the DoP&T vide their letter dated 31.3.2009 seeking certain clarifications in respect of exclusion of the creamy layer candidates of the OBC certificate which made them distinguishable from SC/ST certificate. It is further stated that in response, the DoP&T vide its letter dated 3.8.2009 had forwarded copies of Office Memorandums dated 25.7.2003 and 9.9.2005. As per clause 3 of the OM dated 25.7.2003, the following guideline was prescribed:-
The appointing authority before appointing a person seeking appointment on the basis of reservation to OBCs should verify the veracity of the community certificates submitted by the candidate and also the fact that he/she does not fall in creamy layer on the crucial date. The crucial date for this purpose may be treated as the closing date for receipt of application for the post except in cases where crucial date is fixed otherwise. 6.4 Reservations have also been expressed in the CA by the respondents 2 and 3 regarding the genuineness of the OBC certificate of the applicant. From their reply to para-1, the following submissions are extracted:-
xxxxx. Further her obtaining the OBC certificate from the authorities of GNCT of Delhi creates doubt as her place of birth is Village Jattola, Sonepat, Haryana and her schooling is from schools located in Haryana. Honble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 04.08.09 has held that only Delhi origin reserved category candidates can be considered for admissibility of benefit of reservation in jobs. Further, in reply to para 4.3, it is stated that the applicant had obtained the OBC certificate from the authorities of GNCTD suffixing her husbands name on it.
6.5 On the point of OBC certificate another objection has been raised about the applicant not only not being in possession of the OBC Certificate on the cut off date i.e. 29.7.2007 but also not having applied sufficiently in advance despite sufficient time having been given for it by the Board. The CA states that the Boards advertisement inviting applications for the post appeared in the leading newspapers during the month of September 2007 and finally appeard in the Employment News/Rojgar Samachar issue 06-12 October, 2007, however, the applicant had supplied for the same only on 6.11.2007.
6.6 In addition, certain other discrepancies have also been alleged in the application form submitted by the applicant. The CA by respondents no. 2 and 3 states that in her application from the applicant had indicated not possessing the educational qualification as on date of receipt of the application. Further she had left the relevant column i.e. month and year of passing and the percentage of marks obtained and subjects against her DED qualification, which are essential for the post.
6.7 As regards the judicial rulings cited in the OA, these are stated not to be applicable in the present case since the same had related to the advertisement released during the year 1998; whereas the present advertisement had contained all the terms and conditions in very unambiguous terms.
7.1 The objections of other discrepancies in the application form as stated in the CA of respondents 2 and 3 may not be relevant, considering that the applicants case had not been rejected in the category of invalid applications. Further the fact of the respondents themselves vide their communication dated 17.11.2008 having required the applicant to provide the information regarding the OBC certificate to remove the deficiency also reinforces this point. Again even under the RTI Act, the only reason for non-selection had been stated as non-eligibility for admissibility in the OBC category. In these circumstances, the respondents raising all these other objections at this stage would be hit by the doctrine of estoppel.
7.2 The late submission of OBC certificate on the candidature of a candidate has come in for consideration of the Tribunal in a number of cases. As a general proposition, the view being taken in such cases by different Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal (Principal Bench) has been that if the Certificate had been applied before the closing date, even if the same is issued later, it would stand as an impediment. This was with the justification that the OBC status is conferred on a candidate from the date of inclusion of that category as an OBC in the concerned Government/Union Territory and thus the date of issuance of the Certificate is not the determining factor. It has also been considered that if the candidate had applied well before the cut off date and the delay in issuance could not be attributed to him/her, the effect of delayed submission should not deprive the candidate of his/her legitimate right for appointment, if otherwise found so eligible. In this context to name only a few, the following are mentioned:
1. OA 370/2009 (Anu Devi v. MCD & Ors) decided on 17.7.2009.
2. OA 0342/2009 (Virender Solanki vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi} decided along with several other TAs on 4.8.2009.
3. OA 1059/2009 (Ajay Kumar vs Union of India & Ors) decided on 6.1.2010.
4. OA 475/2010 (Rajbir Singh vs GNCTD & Ors) decided on 6.7.2010.
5. OA 130/2010 (Ms. Seema vs MCD & Anr)decided on 4.5.2010.
7.3 The learned counsel Shri Ajesh Luthra has drawn our particular attention to the OA No.1059/2009. This was also a case in which keeping in view the constructions of consistency with the earlier judgments by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, the OA had been allowed and directions issued to consider the applicant as an OBC candidate subject to verification of correctness of the Certificate.
7.4 The matter has also come in for consideration of the Honble Delhi High Court on several occasions. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before us a copy of the decision in Writ Petition (C) No.4122/1999 (Sunita vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors) decided on 24.3.2005. In this case, the facts were distinguishable from the present one as no cut off date for submission of caste certificate had been prescribed in the advertisement. However, even in this case the Honble High Court had held that submission of Caste Certificate after the genuine cut off date mentioned in the advertisement did not entail treating the reserved category candidate under the general category. It had also been held that an OBC Certificate issued by the competent authority of GNCTD was binding on the respondents.
7.5 As regards the other two High Court judgments relied upon by the applicant are the decisions in CWP No.548 of 2008 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr v. Ms Poonam Chauhan) decided on 9.7.2008 and the WPC No 18221/2006 (Shri Pradeep Kumar vs The Chairman, DSSSB) decided on 12.2.2009. In these cases also the view had been taken that if a person belonged to the OBC category or reserved category and had taken the steps for obtaining necessary certificate from the concerned Department within the permissible time and had filed such a certificate before the completion of the provisional selection process then such a candidate had to be considered in the same category for which he/she had applied at the time of filling of the application for the said post.
7.6 The latest judgment of the Delhi High Court in a similar case that has been brought to our notice is of 17.2.2010 in which a common order had been passed in six Writ Petitions including WPC No.13870 of 2009 (DSSSB & Anr vs Anu Devi & Anr). As the decision is not only found to be the latest in series but also highly relevant to the issues raised in the instant OA before us. Its main aspects are being stated below:
(a) The common issue in all these Writ Petition involved was whether the respondents were entitled for selection to the post of Primary (Teacher) under the OBC category as they had not submitted the OBC certificate along with the application form by the last date for submitting it i.e. 29.10.2007 but had submitted the certificate within the time given later on by the notices given by DSSSB. The Tribunal (Principal Bench) had held in different OAs filed before it that the plea of the cut off dates might hold good for educational qualifications but would not apply in the case of Caste Certificate. This was taking the view that the eligibility in this case got acquired by a candidate on the date of a particular caste being notified as OBC in a particular State and not on account of the date of issuance of an OBC Certificate. In this respect, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of the High Court in WPC No.8508 of 2007 dated 2.2.2009 which in turn had relied on another decision of the High Court in Tej Pal Singh & Ors vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi {120 (2005) DLT 117}. The OAs had been allowed by different Benches of the Tribunal and the Honble High Court in its aforesaid decision of 17.2.2010 had upheld the view taken by the Tribunal. The Writ Petitions filed by the DSSSB in all these six cases had been dismissed.
(b) While deciding this case, the Honible Delhi High Court had been seized with the specific facts of all the six different cases. A perusal of this detailed judgment reveals that on behalf of DSSSB many similar contentions had been raised objecting to the Tribunals decisions, as are being raised before us in the present OA. These, inter alia, included a clear stipulation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement regarding the submission of the OBC Certificate and the implications of non adherence to these conditions (Para-4). Further the ground of discrimination and injustice to those candidates who had not submitted their applications as they do not possess the OBC certificate on the closing date had also been raised (para-5).
While adverting to the earlier decision in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr vs. Poonam Chauhan (supra), it had been noticed that the relevant Office Memorandum had not specified about the Caste Certificate issued subsequent to the date of closing of receipt of applications as not being considered or looked into (Para-14). The Honble High Court had attached particular importance to the fact of the subsequent notices having been sent by the DSSSB to the petitioners to submit the OBC certificates by the last date as indicated in the Notice. Further in all these cases the respondents had submitted their OBC Certificates within the stipulated time limit. The fact that in none of the cases the petitioners had found the respondents as not eligible for selection under the OBC category had also been noted by the Honble Court (Para 15).
Carrying these arguments further, it was observed that vide the notice it had been communicated that determination of the eligibility for the post under the OBC category of the candidates had been pending on account of lack of certain information/documents. It had not been communicated about their applications having been rejected for consideration under the OBC category. Further Honble Court had observed that no pleas had been advanced on behalf of DSSSB about the notices in question having been issued by unauthorized person or not being valid notices (Paras 16 & 17).
On these grounds, the Honble High Court had taken the view that the petitioners had the power to extend the time and in the circumstances the logical inference was that the time to submit the OBC certificates had been extended. Para 18 of the Order is being extracted as under:
18. The petitioners had the power to extend the time and in the circumstances, the logical inference shall be that the time to submit the OBC certificates was extended and within the extended time, the certificates were submitted by the respondents/candidates. As also held in Poonam Chauhan (supra), the advertisement did not specify that the OBC certificates submitted after the last date for submission of application form shall not be considered and the applications shall be rejected. The petitioners have not construed such a restriction in their advertisements and therefore, extended the time and gave notices demanding rectifying the deficiencies and directed the candidates to submit the appropriate OBC certificates, which were applied by the candidates prior to last date for submission of application forms but which were given to the candidates by the authorities after the last date for submission of application forms, which were submitted by them within the extended time given by the petitioners. The Honble High Court had also made a clear finding in Para 19 of the judgment that the submission of OBC certificates for reservation under the OBC category cannot be equated with acquisition of educational qualification. The view taken was that the candidates not belonging to the creamy layer became eligible under the OBC category the day their caste was notified by the appropriate authority as a backward class and the submission of the requisite certificate was only a ministerial act which could not be equated with acquisition of educational qualification to become eligible for a post (Para 19).
It is pertinent to mention that in these cases the fact of even non-submission of the OBC certificate before the closing date of submission of forms, as was the case in WPC No.13915 of 2009 (DSSSB & Anr v. Ms. Rekhawati & Anr) had not made any difference to the basic issue, as per the Honble High Court. Even the plea of discrimination vis-`-vis other candidates who might not have applied on account of not having the OBC certificate by the closing date for submission of the application form was not found acceptable by the Honble High Court and stated to be as based on surmises.
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the following was observed:-
In the circumstances it will not be appropriate and in the interest of justice to infer that the order of the Tribunal holding that the respondents/candidates in different writ petitions are entitled for selection under the reserved category in accordance with their marks, are bad in law and are liable to be quashed. Para-22 of the Judgment had made it clear that before exercising its writ jurisdiction, the High Court had a discretion to interfere or not depending upon the facts and circumstances of a case, and therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Tribunal in the challenged cases.
8. On behalf of the applicant reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Public Service Commission vs Satyanarayan Sheohare & Anr. (supra). The facts of this case were distinguishable from the present case as it had involved the applicability of amendments in the existing statutes by which certain castes got included in the list of reservation. The view taken by the Apex Court was that whenever an Act is amended by including new castes/classes in the list of other backward classes in Schedule-I; the date of amendment of the Act would be the date of commencement of the act in regard to such class/caste inserted by the amendment. Further, since the applicant in this case, who had originally applied as a general candidate but was subsequently claiming the benefit of being considered under the OBC quota as a result of the amendment notification. Taking into account the specific provisions of the relevant statute, the view taken had been that the process of selection would be deemed to have been initiated when the written test in this case was started. Since the same as per the facts was subsequent to the date of amendment notification, the petitioners were held to be considered eligible as OBC category candidates.
9.1 The facts of the present case and the issues of law raised in the present case are found to be essentially similar to those considered by the Honble High Court of Delhi in its decision of 17.2.2010 discussed at length above. Here also the applicant who, though had indicated her category as OBC in the application form and had not submitted the certificate along with it or by the last cut off date, had been asked by the respondents to submit the OBC certificate at a later date and the same had been complied by the applicant. On this ground the fact of late submission of the OBC certificate cannot be taken as an impediment in the way of the applicant being considered for appointment, since she had admittedly secured higher marks than the last selected candidate under the OBC category.
The plea taken by the respondents about the DoP&T instructions stating the last date for submission of applications as the critical date for determining the creamy layer status in case of OBC certificate would also not prevail in view of the clear judicial ruling on the subject.
9.2 The relevant point, however, in this case remains regarding the doubts expressed by the DSSSB about the genuineness of the OBC certificate itself and evocation of law laid down by the Apex Court in Subash Chandra & Anr v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board {SLP No 24327 of 2005} about the benefits of reservation being admissible in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to only a person of Delhi origin. This aspect, which has still not been verified, cannot be brushed aside.
9.3 As regards the plea of the respondents regarding the selection process having been finalized on 17.4.2009 i.e. prior to the filing of the OA and issuance of interim direction by the Tribunal regarding keeping one post of Assistant Teacher vacant under OBC quota, the same may not really foreclose the claims of the applicant if otherwise found as per law. In the event of the applicants certificate being found genuine, she would need to be given appointment even by creating a supernumerary post, if found necessary. This would, however, be only with prospective effect.
In view of the forgoing, the OA is disposed with a direction to the respondents to get the genuineness of the OBC status of the applicant verified and take an appropriate decision on the subject by a speaking order keeping our observations in the body of this order in mind, within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pkr/