Delhi High Court
Anshu Yadav vs M.C.D., The Commissioner, Town Hall, ... on 27 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998VAD(DELHI)37, 1998(46)DRJ693
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The first respondent, MCD, called for applications for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers in the schools run by it. The advertisement was made on the 16th of July, 1996 in the Hindustan Times. The advertisement, mentioned above, provided reservation for categories. The last date for submitting the applications was fixed as 31.7.1996. On the 30th of July, 1996, the petitioner made her application. She had mentioned in the application that she belonged to OBC category. The advertisement stated that:-
"Note: Candidates seeking reservation as ST/SC/OBC/ex-S/OH may submit the prescribed certificate from the competent authority in support of their claim with applications. The reservation policy to the categories of SC/ST/OBC/ex-S and physically handicapped candidates shall be followed in accordance with the latest policy of Central/Delhi Govt."
2. Admittedly, the petitioner did not send any OBC Certificate along with the application. According to the petitioner, she applied for the issuance of the said certificate to the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the 27th of August, 1996 and the certificate was issued on the 8th of October, 1996 and later on, she sent the certificate to the MCD. The MCD had issued a public notice in the Hindustan Times which is as under:-
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCEDURE FOR RECRUITMENT OF PRIMARY TEACHERS It is to inform the candidates who applied to the post of Primary Teachers advertised in the News-Papers in July -1996, can file their objections, if any, to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Education), Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, through Registered Post only latest by 12.02.98. The final list of the applicants has been displayed on 12.12.97 on the Notice Board of the Education Department(Headquarters).
The criteria, of selection was on merit, by calculating the grading on the basis of Marks Obtained by the candidates in their Educational Career, is as under:-
S. Percentage Matric Inter/ Higher JBT B.Ed/
No. of Marks & or Sr.Sec. Sec. (in ETE or
Range Equi- or Equi- place LT NTT equi-
valent valent of Xth valent
& XIIth
1. Below 50% 15 22 37 18 18
2. Below 60% 18 25 43 22 22
(Above 50%)
3. Below 75% 20 30 50 25 25
(Above 60%)
4. 75% and 23 35 58 27 27
above
Note:- The percentage in the 10+2/Intermediate/Sr.Sec. have been calculated in the five subjects. Last candidate selected in different categories are as under:-
S.No. Name of Category Grading Date of Birth
01 General 72 30/11/69
02 Scheduled Caste 63
03 Ex-Service-men 55
04 Other Backward
Classes 55 05/06/68
05 O.P.H. 62 13/08/77
06 Urdu Teacher
1. General 70 09/12/71
2. O.B.C. 59 03/12/68
3. Physically
Handicapped 55 26/01/64
07 Urdu Teacher
1. General 75 27/12/70
2. O.B.C. 72 01/07/74
Note:- The candidates who have submitted the O.B.C. Certificate issued till 31/05/1997, and applied to the Competent Authority of Govt. of N.C.T.Delhi on or before 31/07/1996, have been considered in OBC category.
The Candidates while submitting their objections shall enclose the proof/evidence in support of their claim.
Additional Dy.Commissioner (Education Deptt.,H.Q.) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI"
3. The case of the petitioner is that her grading was 57 and the grading of the other candidates belonging to OBC category was 55 and the MCD had considered OBC certificates issued up to 31.5.1997. Therefore, according to the petitioner, her case should have been considered by the MCD and she should have been issued with an appointment order. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.K.Saini, submitted that the MCD had acted in an unreasonable fashion in stating that such of those candidates who had applied for certificate on or before the 31st of July, 1996 alone would be considered. The petitioner, according to Mr.R.K.Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, had not applied for the issuance of the certificate to the concerned SDM because the Government had not issued necessary notification fixing the areas conferring jurisdiction on the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrates. The notification was issued by the Government only in August, 1996 and, therefore, there was delay in applying for the issuance of OBC certificate, and delay could not be the act of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner.
4. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has given reasons seeking to justify the delay in applying for the certificate. The paragraph 3 of the writ petition reads as under:-
"That the petitioner fulfillled the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement as aforesaid for the post of Primary Teacher and she belong to an OBC category i.e. `Yadav'. As such she was entitled to apply for the post of Primary Teacher as per the eligibility criteria and also entitled to claim for consideration under the reserved category of OBC as she belonged to a backward caste i.e. `Yadav'. A true copy of the Notification of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi dated 20.1.1995 issued in this regard is annexed herewith marked as ANNEXURE P-2.
The petitioner had approached in June 1996 the Office of the Deputy Commissioner Shahdara Zone (the area where she is residing) for issuance of the OBC Certificate but she was not given the application form to be filled up for the purpose and was asked to wait stating that no OBC Certificate were being issued at present and the same would be issued by the concerned SDM after a notification regarding sub-divisions of the Zone is issued. Therefore, the petitioner had to wait for 3-4 months and when the above said notification was issued in this regard the petitioner immediately applied for the issuance of the OBC Certificate again in August, 1996.
As such, the petitioner was not having the OBC Certificate issued form the competent authority in July, 1996 and as the same was not likely to be obtained by the last date for submission of application forms i.e. 31st July, 1996, she had no option but to apply for the post of primary teacher without the OBC Certificate, but her Application Form was duly accepted by the Respondents under the OBC category. True copies of the employment registration card and educational certificates of the petitioner showing her eligibility to apply her annexed herewith collectively marked as ANNEXURE P-3.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner thereafter immediately applied to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara Zone for issuance of OBC Certificate. She got her form for the aforesaid purpose deposited in the concerned Office in the second week of August, 1996. Pending the verification and other formalities the petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Shahdara Zone on 27.8.1996 and explained the urgency for OBC Certificate. The Learned SDM issued a receipt to the petitioner on this date acknowledging the fact that her OBC Certificate is pending issuance and the same will be issued within next few days. The petitioner took this Receipt and sent a true copy of the same to the office of the Respondents. A true copy of Receipt dated 27.8.1996 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3.A."
5. Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD, submitted that having regard to large number of applications received by the MCD, in the interest of the candidates and to enable the candidates to obtain OBC certificates, the MCD had relaxed the condition mentioned in the advertisement. If any candidate was serious in establishing his or her claim as belong to any reserved category, such candidate should have applied before the 31st of July, 1996. The MCD, according to Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD, had taken a policy decision in respect of all the candidates and the MCD did not make any distinction and the policy decision was applied without any distinction to all the candidates claiming to come under reserved category. The petitioner, not having been diligent in applying for OBC certificate, cannot turn down and say that owing to circumstances beyond her control she could not apply for OBC Certificate. Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD, had brought to my notice the certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi to the candidates coming within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. According to Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD, when other candidates similarly situated could obtain OBC certificates on or before the 31st of July, 1996, the petitioner also could have obtained the OBC certificate if she had taken steps diligently and the conduct of the petitioner is deprecating and would disentitle her to claim any relief.
6. Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD, referred to the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-
1. "Satwant Kaur Vs. Dhund Singh",
2. "G.Narayanaswamy Reddy(dead) by L.Rs. & Another Vs. Government of India & Another",
3. "S.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. & Others", (1994) 1 SCC 1 : (1993) 4 AD (SC) 539
4. "Smt.Apari Vs. State & Others", 1996 1 AD (Delhi) 887
7. Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD, also referred to a judgment of this Court in 1996 1 AD (Delhi) 887 to show that in a petition under Article 226, the conduct of the petitioner is relevant.
8. The learned counsel for the MCD, Mr.Raman Duggal, submitted that in fixing the cut-off date the MCD had taken into account all the relevant factors to take a policy decision and that decision had been fare, reasonable and it has been uniformly applied and, therefore, the petitioner having failed to comply with the policy, cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner has a right and there is a corresponding legal duty on the part of the MCD to issue an appoint order to the petitioner.
9. 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 of July, 1996. If she had applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the 31st of 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.
10. The argument of Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD about the conduct of the petitioner is not at all acceptable. The petitioner was quite ignorant about the jurisdiction of the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, no doubt, she had not applied for the OBC certificate on or before the 31st of July, 1996. On that score, it cannot be said that there was any wilful intention on the part of the petitioner to suppress any material fact. The petitioner had candidly stated that she applied for the OBC certificate only on the 27th of August, 1996. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to have been established to be such that her case would come within the mischief of the principle contended for by Mr.Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the MCD.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
12. There shall be no orders as to costs.