Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Union Of India on 27 February, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.2646 OF 2013 New Delhi, this the 27th day of February, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AND HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sandeep, s/o Baljeet Singh, R/o Village & PO-Dawla, Tehsil Jhajjar, Haryana . . Applicant (By Advocate: Mr.Javed Ahmed) Vs. 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Staff Selection Commission (HQrs), Block 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi 2. Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Block 12, CGO Comlex, Lodhi Road, Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Mr.S.M.Arif) ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) direct the Respondent to consider the case of the appointment of the applicant on the post of LDC and issue appointment letter for the post of LDC;
b) direct the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits to the applicant in the interest of justice;
c) pass such other or further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Opposing the O.A. the respondents have filed a counter reply. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder reply to the respondents counter reply.
3. We have perused the pleadings and have heard Mr.Javed Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr.S.M.Arif, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Respondent-Staff Selection Commission issued a notice of recruitment to the posts of Data Entry Operator and Lower Division Clerk (LDC) for which 12th Standard Pass or equivalent was the minimum qualification. The recruitment examination comprised of Written Objective Type Examination, followed by Data Entry Skill Test/Typing Test. The notice was published in the Employment News dated 14.7.2012(Annexure P-1). The closing date for submission of applications was 10.08.2012. Clause 8(C) of the notice reads thus:
(C). Typing Test for LDCs:
Typing Test will be conducted for those candidates who qualify in the Written Examination. Such Typing Test will be conducted in English or Hindi and candidates while applying for the Examination, will have to indicate his/her choice/option for Skill Test Medium in the Application Form. The choice of language in the application will be final and no change will be allowed.
Typing Test will be administered on the Computer, to be provided by the Commission or any agency authorized by the Commission will be of qualifying in nature.
Candidates opting for English medium should have typing speed of 35 words per minute and those opting for Hindi medium should have typing speed of 30 words per minute.
The speed will be adjudged on the accuracy of typing on the Computer of a given text passage in 10 minutes. Visually Handicapped candidates (with 40% disability and above) will be allowed 30 minutes.
Passage Dictators will be provided to each of VH candidates for the Typewriting test. The Passage Dictators will read out the passage to the VH candidates within the allotted time period.
NOTE-I: 35 w.p.m. and 30 w.p.m. corresponds to 10500 key depressions per hour/9000 key depressions per hour respectively.
NOTE-II: OH candidates who claim to be permanently unfit to take the typing test because of a physical disability may, with the prior approval of the Commission, be exempted from the recruitment of appearing and qualifying at such test provided such a candidate submits a Certificate in the prescribed format to the Commission from the competent Medical Authority, i.e., the Civil Surgeon declaring him/her to be permanently unfit for the Typewriting Test because of a physical disability.
NOTE-III. If an OH candidate who submits a Medical Certificate from the Medical Board attached to VRC for PH persons or from the Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchange for PH persons, his/her claim for exemption from Typewriting Test would be accepted. However, if she/he submits Medical Certificate from Civil/Orthopaedic Surgeon, his/her case would be referred to a Medical Board in a Government Hospital or Medical Board attached to VRC/Special Employment Exchange for PH persons for clearance.
OH Candidates seeking exemption from Typing Test on medical ground must substantiate their claim by furnishing the relevant Medical Certificate in the prescribed Format as published in this Notice (Annexure IX) at the time of Typing Test. Otherwise their claim for seeking exemption from Typing Test will not be entertained by the Commission.
NOTE IV: If any candidate does not opt for any medium for typing, his option will be deemed to be for English medium.
NOTE V: Only those candidates who secure at least the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion, will be called for Typing Test. The Commission may also, at his discretion, for qualifying the minimum qualifying marks in each component of the written examination.
5. In response to the aforesaid notice (Annexure P-1), the applicant claiming to be an Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) candidate applied for the post of LDC/DEO. He submitted the Medical Certificate dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Government Hospital. He was declared to have qualified in the written examination (Annexure P-2) for the post of LDC. He was called for appearing in the Typing Test on 1.3.2013. As the Medical Certificate in the prescribed form was not possessed by him, he requested the respondent-SSC to allow him exemption from Typing Test on the basis of the Medical Certificate, copy of which was submitted by him along with the application. But his request was not acceded to and he was told that in the event of his not appearing in the Typing Test, he would be declared absent. Therefore, he appeared in the Typing Test and typed the assigned work with one hand only. Copy of the Medical Certificate in the prescribed proforma issued to him on 3.5.2013 has been filed by the applicant as Annexure P-5. Thereafter, the applicant made a representation dated 3.6.2013(Annexure P-6) to the respondent-SSC for considering his case for selection and appointment to the post of LDC as an OH candidate. His representation did not yield the desired result. Ultimately, he was not selected by the respondent-SSC for appointment to the post of LDC.
6. It was submitted by Mr.Javed Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that as the applicant had submitted the copy of the Medical Certificate dated 16.12.2009 issued by the Government Hospital, along with his application, wherein it was certified that he had suffered from 50% disability, the respondent-SSC ought to have accepted the same and allowed him exemption from Typing Test, instead of requiring him to appear in the Typing Test. On being compelled, he had to appear in the Typing Test. Subsequently, he had submitted the Medical Certificate in the prescribed proforma which was issued to him on 3.5.2013. As in both the said Medical Certificates, the applicant was certified to have suffered from 50% disability, the respondent-SSC ought to have selected him as an OH candidate for appointment to the post of LDC by granting him exemption from Typing Test on the basis of the Medical Certificate dated 16.12.2009, copy of which he had furnished along with his application. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the condition stipulated in the notice (Annexure P-1) requiring the candidates to furnish the Medical Certificate in the prescribed proforma is unreasonable and unjustified, and, therefore, denial of exemption from Typing Test on the basis of the Medical Certificate dated 16.12.2009 furnished by the applicant on the said date of Typing Test and his consequent non-selection as an OH candidate on the ground of non-furnishing of Medical Certificate in the prescribed proforma are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Hari Singh v. State Selection Commission and another, 170(2010) DLT 262 (DB).
7. In Hari Singhs case (supra), respondent-SSC issued public notice inviting applications for recruitment to various posts of Sub Inspector in Central Police Organization by holding an open competitive examination on all India basis. The closing date for submission of applications was 14.9.2007. The note appearing under Clause 4(B) of the notice stipulated that the closing date for receipt of application would be treated as the date of reckoning for OBC status of the candidate and also for assuming that the candidate does not fall in the creamy layer, and that the candidate should furnish the relevant OBC Certificate in the format prescribed for Central jobs as per Annexure VIII issued by the competent authority on or before the Closing Date stipulated in the Notice. OBC Certificate obtained otherwise than the prescribed certificate meant for Central Government jobs would not be considered for seeking relaxation/reservation whatsoever. Note II below Clause 4(E) required the candidates to submit, along with their applications, attested certificates in support of their claims regarding, inter alia, their belonging to OBC. It was, inter alia, provided in Clause 10(x) that the original documents or certificates would be verified at the time of personal test/interview and their candidature would be subject to result of such scrutiny. The petitioner applied as a candidate belonging to OBC category. He submitted a copy of the OBC certificate dated 9.6.1994/16.6.1991 issued by the Tehsildar. He was successful in the written examination. Respondent-SSC, vide communication dated 31.5.2008, stated that OBC category candidates must submit their OBC certificate in the prescribed proforma issued by the competent authority on or before 14.9.2007, failing which the candidate, they would be treated as unreserved category candidate subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions. The petitioner appeared on 15.7.2008 for PET and on 16.7.2008 for medical test. According to the petitioner, he was coerced into giving an undertaking to the effect that since he had not furnished the OBC certificate in the prescribed proforma, he would not claim OBC status and might be considered as a General Category candidate. The petitioner applied for OBC certificate in the prescribed form in August 2008 and got the same on 4.6.2009. In the meantime, on being called, the petitioner appeared for interview on 25.5.2009, vide communication dated 4.5.2009, which, vide para 2(vi), stated that OBC category candidates must submit their OBC certificates in the prescribed proforma, failing which the candidates, would be treated as an unreserved category candidate. According to the petitioner, on the date of interview, i.e., on 25.5.2009, the respondent-SSC did not even ask him to produce his OBC certificate in the prescribed proforma, which led him to believe that the respondent-SSC accepted his candidature as falling under OBC category not covered by the creamy layer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble High Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, held thus:
42. Pertinently, he had applied for the said certificate after his PET and medical test i.e. in August, 2008. Admittedly, even when the petitioner appeared for his interview on 25th May, 2009, he was not even asked by the respondents to produce the said certificate even though all along he had been shown as falling in the OBC category, including in the Employment News publication for the period 16-22 May, 2009. In our view, the respondents should have asked the petitioner, when he appeared for interview, to produce his OBC caste certificate, as: (i) he had applied as an OBC category candidate and submitted his earlier certificate in support of his application; (ii) he had been shown as belonging to the OBC category in the admission certificate and in the results published in the Employment News of 16- 22 May, 2009, and (iii) the respondents had themselves given the opportunity to the candidates to produce the original OBC certificates at the time of interview in their communication dated 04.05.2009. Had the respondents posed the relevant queries at the time of the petitioner's interview, he would have become aware of the subsisting need to submit the OBC certificate in the prescribed proforma; he would not have been misled into believing that the OBC certificate already submitted by him had been accepted and acted upon by the respondents, and; he would have submitted the same on, or soon after 04.06.2009, when it was issued to him.
43. The reliance placed by the respondents on the undertaking given by the petitioner, in our view, is of no avail as even after taking the said undertaking from the petitioner they continued to provide him further opportunities to submit his OBC category certificate and themselves reflected the petitioner's category as an OBC candidate in the Employment News of 16-22 May, 2009. The petitioner, at the relevant time, had no option, but to give the undertaking as desired by the respondents. In our view, a candidate who is conferred a constitutional right of reservation cannot be denied the said right on the basis of a mere undertaking particularly when the undertaking itself was not acted upon by the respondents and also in view of the fact that the time limit set for submission of such a certificate is not sacrosanct and has not been treated as such by the respondents themselves. The said undertaking has been given by the petitioner, obviously, at the respondents insistence and not of his own volition. Else his candidature would not have been considered. When the respondents have themselves relaxed the rigor of their terms and conditions and the undertaking, they cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold from time to time.
44. While considering the petitioner's explanation for non-submission of the freshly obtained OBC certificate, we cannot ignore the fact that he is not a highly educated person. He comes from a backward class and, therefore, the possibility of his not appreciating the importance of submission of the said certificate even after 04.06.2009 cannot be ruled out. After all, he had already submitted an OBC certificate issued by the same authority who had submitted the subsequent certificate dated 04.06.2009 in the prescribed format. We, therefore, accept the explanation furnished by the petitioner that he did not submit the freshly obtained OBC certificate in the prescribed proforma contained in Annexure VIII of the notice of examination, on account of his reeling under a bona fide impression that his candidature as an OBC category candidate not falling within the creamy layer had been finally accepted on the basis of his earlier OBC certificate submitted by him along with his application form, for which the respondents were responsible. We also accept the petitioner's submission that had he not entertained the said bona fide belief, he would have submitted his freshly obtained OBC category certificate soon after its issuance on 04th June, 2009. Had the certificate been so submitted, the respondents would have been bound to consider the petitioner's candidature as an OBC category candidate, inasmuch as, the results were not declared till as late as on 20th July, 2009.
45. We are conscious of the fact that if the basic frame work of the terms and conditions and/or the relevant rules requires the submission of the OBC certificate, by a candidate applying in that category, along with the application itself, it can lead to an unworkable and impracticable situation if no time limit whatsoever is fixed for submission of such certificates by the candidates. It would become extremely difficult for the examining body to compile and declare the results if a deadline/ cut off date is not fixed for the purpose of entertaining such certificates.
8. Mr.S.M.Arif, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, invited our attention to paragraphs B and C, at pages 2 and 3 of the counter reply, and submitted that the applicant, having been declared qualified in the written test, was called to appear in the Typing Test on 1.3.2013. He produced the Medically Disability Certificate and sought exemption from Typing Test. His request was not accepted by the respondent-SSC as the said Certificate was not in the prescribed proforma as per the notice of examination. Therefore, he appeared in the Typing Test, but could not qualify in it. If at all the applicant did not possess the prescribed Medical Certificate at the time of making application, there was sufficient time between publication of the notice and the date of Typing Test for the applicant to apply for and obtain the requisite Medical Certificate. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant was not entitled to be granted exemption from Typing Test as he did not comply with the provisions of the notice of examination. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the provisions of the notice of examination are sacrosanct and are binding on the candidates as well as the respondent-SSC. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Manpreet Kaur Randhawa v. Baba Farid University of Health, CWP No.13688 of 2001, decided on 8.2.2001; and the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Union Public Service Commission v. GNCTD, WP ( C ) No.10558 of 2009, decided on 25.1.2010.
9. In Manpreet Kaur Randhawas case (supra), the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed thus:
It is settled rule of law that terms and conditions of brochure are binding and must be adhered to by all concerned. The obligations placed upon an applicant/candidate as per brochure to be discharged in the form and manner prescribed therein.
10. In Union Public Service Commission v. GNCTD (supra), the challenge was to the order of the Tribunal directing the UPSC to consider the candidatures of some applicants even though their Detailed Application Forms(DAFs) were incomplete. The Division Bench of the Honble High Court of Delhi held thus:
25. With such a large number of DAFs having been received by the UPSC, it is impracticable to expect the UPSC to give a go by to the instructions that have categorically and specifically been mentioned in the advertisements issued by it. It is one thing to say that procedure is a handmaid of justice but it is another thing, in practical life, to give procedure a complete go by for the sake of accommodating a few people. If this is done, then there would be no obligation on anybody to follow any procedure resulting in a completely unmanageable situation.
26. If the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is placed on a larger canvas (since the UPSC conducts dozens of such examinations annually), one can well imagine the resultant chaos. For example, it is well known that the UPSC receives lakhs of applications for the Central Civil Services examination. If every such applicant submits an incomplete application, that is to say that the relevant information is not submitted along with the application, the processing time for the UPSC would take several months and would, in the long run, be completely counterproductive. Consequently, in our opinion while it is true that procedure is the handmaid of justice, it is not possible to ignore practical difficulties that may arise in a given case.
11. In Ashok Kumar Sharma & others v.Chander Shekhar & another, (1997) 4 JT (SC) 99, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that an advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public, and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it.
12. In Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 714, the Honble Supreme Court observed thus:
If the provision is couched in prohibitive or negative language, it can rarely be directory; the use of peremptory language in a negative form is per se indicative of the intent that the provision is to be mandatory.
13. In Indu Gupta v. Director, Sports Punjab and Anr, AIR 1999 P& H 319, the petitioner Indu Gupta had participated in various events of table tennis Championship at Junior State and National Table Tennis Championship, 1996. The petitioner in all these events had participated and represented Union Territory of Chandigarh and was admittedly resident of Union Territory, Chandigarh, for the entire period of her education. She passed 10+2 examination as a regular student of Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector-18, Chandigarh. For the purpose of getting admission to the professional colleges under the sports category, it was necessary that the applicant should submit sports gradation certificate issued by the Director of Sports, Union Territory, Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, she was also entitled to get a seat under the Sports Quota in the professional colleges in the State of Punjab, and the Director of Sports, Punjab, was obliged to countersign the gradation certificate in accordance with the policy of the State of Punjab, dated 4th August, 1992. She submitted her gradation certificate for countersignature on 27th June, 1997, but the respondent-Director of Sports, Punjab, did not countersign the certificate and as such she could not produce the certificate on the date of her interview at Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, on 5-7-1997. Having failed to get the relief at the hands of the respondents, she filed the writ petition with the prayers that respondent No l, Director of Sports, Punjab, be ordered to countersign the gradation certificate issued by the Director of Sports, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and further the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, be directed to keep one seat reserved for the petitioner in the B. E. Course. On the facts of the case, one of the questions that arose for consideration of the Honble Full Bench was whether it was obligatory on the part of the applicant to annex the requisite certificate (in the present case, gradation certificate) along with the application prior to the last date for submission of such application or not. The Honble Full Bench, in paragraph 10 of the judgment, observed as follows:
10. Subsequently, another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997 (3) RSJ 475: (AIR 1998 Punj & Har 18) recapitulated the entire law on the subject. The Full Bench was considering the same brochure for the previous year of the Punjab Technical University. The Court held as under:
"A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 Serv LR 673 had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration. In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, 1994 (4) R.S.J. 289 another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjab University, 1996 (1) RSJ 1 : (AIR 1996 Punj & Har 109) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the coordinator or the competent authority, as the case may be, the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected."
In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Honble Full Bench held thus:
11. The cumulative effect of the above well enunciated principles of law, is that the terms and conditions of the brochure where they used peremptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily to be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise the basic principle of fairness in such highly competitive entrance examinations would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters, to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions of the brochure would per se introduce the element of discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention to the terms of the brochure would decimate the very intent behind the terms and conditions of the brochure, more particularly, where the cut off date itself has been provided in the brochure. The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure. In paragraphs 13, 14 and 16, the Honble Full Bench held thus:
13. Repeated affirmation of the principle by different Full Benches of this Court while relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, unambiguously contains the dictum that the brochure declared before the entrance test has the force of law, strict adherence to its terms and conditions is of paramount consideration and terms and conditions including the cut off date cannot be relaxed unless such power is specifically provided to a given authority by use of unambiguous language. It is conceded before us that there is no power of relaxation given to any authority in regard to specific adherence and compliance of the terms and conditions of the brochure. Rightly so, no such power could be vested as it will but necessarily introduce the element of discrimination and arbitrariness in the action of the authorities concerned, which may ultimately cause serious prejudice to the candidates who are not benefitted of such unprescribed relaxation or waiver. Thousands of students appear in such entrance test and the specialised body have been well advised to set the terms and conditions of the brochure with absolute clarity and definiteness. Introducing an element of doubt in such language would be doing injustice to the rule making authority and in fact, it would amount to frustrate the very legislative intent behind clauses of the brochure.
14. The terms and conditions of the brochure imposes a clear obligation upon the applicant to make a specific claim and support such claim with requisite documents. The specific claim of the candidate would be liable to be entertained only if it is supported by the said documents. In absence thereof or if the application is otherwise incomplete, it would be liable to be rejected and the authorities concerned would be under no obligation to consider such claim. To stake a claim under a particular category is for the candidate to decide but once such a decision is taken by him he is obliged to strictly adhere and comply with the terms and conditions of the brochure and furnish all the requisite information asked for including submission of the certificate like gradation certificate in case of a claim being staked to sports category.
xx xx
16. In view of the above discussion, the only unassailable and veritable view is that a candidate to such entrance test, in view of the terms and conditions of the brochure, afore-referred, is obliged to submit all the certificates required to annex along with the application and submit the same complete in all respects before the cut off date. In default thereto, no obligation is imposed upon the authorities concerned to entertain such application or to grant seat to that candidate.
14. In the instant case, the applicant was called to appear in the Typing Test on 1.3.2013 when he claimed exemption from Typing Test on the basis of the Medical Certificate dated 16.12.2009 which was admittedly not in the prescribed proforma. Page 1 of the notice of recruitment contained the important instructions to candidates. Instruction No.4 stipulated that candidates seeking reservation benefits available for SC/ST/OBC/PH/EXS must ensure that they are entitled to such reservation as per eligibility prescribed in the notice, and that they should also be in possession of the certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claim at the time of Skill Test/Typing Test. Note II below Clause 8(C) of the notice clearly stipulated that OH candidates who claim to be permanently unfit to take the Typing Test because of a physical disability may, with the prior approval of the Commission, be exempted from the recruitment of appearing and qualifying at such test provided such a candidate submits a Certificate in the prescribed format to the Commission from the competent Medical Authority, i.e., the Civil Surgeon declaring him/her to be permanently unfit for the Typewriting Test because of a physical disability. Note III below Clause 8( C ) of the notice clearly stipulated that if an OH candidate who submits a Medical Certificate from the Medical Board attached to VRC for PH persons or from the Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchange for PH persons, his/her claim for exemption from Typewriting Test would be accepted. However, if she/he submits Medical Certificate from Civil/Orthopaedic Surgeon, his/her case would be referred to a Medical Board in a Government Hospital or Medical Board attached to VRC/Special Employment Exchange for PH persons for clearance. It was also clearly stipulated that OH Candidates seeking exemption from Typing Test on medical ground must substantiate their claim by furnishing the relevant Medical Certificate in the prescribed format as published in the Notice (Annexure IX) at the time of Typing Test. Otherwise their claim for seeking exemption from Typing Test would not be entertained by the Commission. Clause 8 ( C ), referred to above, does not in any way grant permission, specifically or even by necessary implication, to OH candidates, like the applicant, who were seeking exemption from Typing Test, to produce the Medical Certificate in the prescribed proforma at any stage subsequent to the date of Typing Test. The language of Clause 8 ( C ), Note III, of the notice unambiguously required OH candidates to produce the Medical Certificates in the prescribed proforma at the time of Typing Test, otherwise their claim for seeking exemption from Typing Test would not be entertained by the respondent-SSC. The eligibility of OH candidate for exemption from Typing Test has to be considered directly in relation to the cut off date prescribed in the notice. The Medical Certificate, copy of which the applicant has filed as Annexure P-5 to the O.A., was issued to the applicant only on 3.5.2013. The said Medical Certificate was admittedly in the proforma prescribed in the notice of recruitment. He might have sent the said Medical Certificate dated 3.5.2013 to the respondent-SSC after nearly two months of the Typing Test. There was no provision in the notice of examination enabling an OH candidate to send the Medical Certificate in the prescribed proforma after the Typing Test was over and before the result of the selection was declared. To entertain such Medical Certificate, as requested by the applicant, would not only be contrary to the terms and conditions of the notice of examination, but also be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as there might be some other candidates, like the applicant, who were disallowed exemption from Typing Test because of they having not submitted Medical Certificates in the prescribed proforma at the time of Typing Test, and in the circumstances, acceptation of the prayer of the applicant would be tantamount to depriving them of similar treatment. Over and above, in the event, had the request of the applicant been acceded to by the respondent-SSC, it would have given rise to multifarious claims by some candidates for relaxation of other terms and conditions, whose candidatures might have been rejected for their not complying with the same in pursuance of notice of recruitment. In the process, the entire scheme of recruitment would have been vulnerable thereby frustrating the legislative intention. After having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar Sharmas case (supra) and Lachmi Narains case (supra) and the decision of the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Indu Guptas case (supra), we hold that the provisions contained in Clause 8( C), Note III, of the notice are mandatory, and that the failure on the part of the applicant to produce the relevant Medical Certificate in the prescribed format at the time of Typing Test disentitled him exemption from Typing Test. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the respondent-SSC in not acceding to the applicants request made on the date and at the time of Typing Test to allow him exemption from Typing Test on the basis of the Medical Certificate dated 16.12.2009 which was not in the prescribed proforma and did not specifically certify that his disability is likely to interfere with the Typewriting. We also do not find any fault with the respondent-SSC in not entertaining the Medical Certificate dated 3.5.2013 claimed to have been subsequently sent by the applicant for allowing him exemption from Typing Test and in not deciding his selection, or otherwise, on the basis of the written examination in which he had qualified.
15. In Hari Singhs case (supra), the Honble High Court found that the respondent-SSC had subsequently granted opportunity to OBC category candidates to submit the OBC Certificate in the prescribed proforma. The petitioner had given an undertaking under coercion at the time of PET and medical test that since he had not furnished the OBC Certificate in the prescribed proforma, he would not claim OBC status and he might be considered as a general category candidate. At the time of interview, the respondent-SSC did not even ask the petitioner to submit the OBC Certificate in the prescribed proforma, for which the petitioner was misled into believing that the OBC certificate already submitted by him along with the application had been accepted and acted upon by the respondents. The petitioner was not a highly educated person. He came from a backward class and therefore, the possibility of his not appreciating the importance of submission of the said certificate even after 4.6.2009 could not be ruled out. In the instant case, we have not noticed any of the features as in Hari Singhs case (supra). Therefore, the decision in Hari Singhs case (supra) is of no help to the case of the applicant.
16. Last but not the least, we cannot lose sight of the legal maxim actus curaie neminem gravabit which means act of court shall prejudice none. It transpires from the records that the final result of selection was published in May 2013. The selected candidates might have been appointed soon thereafter. Any sort of intervention by the Tribunal in the matter at the instance of the applicant is likely to upset the select list and affect the rights of some persons who have been appointed to the post of LDC on the basis of the said selection. Besides, as indicated above, if in the given case, the prayer of the applicant is allowed, it would give birth to umpteen number of litigations in respect of the grievances which have been buried in oblivion.
17. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for any of the reliefs claimed by him. The O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN