Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On the second submission of Mr. Singal, Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel states that Tej Pal, the respondent No. 3 having availed the benefit of age relaxation so also the waiver of fee, even though, was topper in the selection, would still be appointed against an OBC vacancy and not „Unreserved‟ vacancy. This according to him, is in terms of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Baljit Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and Ors., in CWP 9773/2011 decided on August 17, 2011, wherein, the High Court upheld the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, and held that a candidate belonging to „Reserved‟ category, who has availed the concession of the age relaxation, cannot be permitted to consume the „General‟ category seat. He would state, the said judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Baljit Singh's case (supra) has been upheld by the Supreme Court. He also states, the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India has issued circular dated March 12, 2015, wherein it is clarified that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) dated January 08, 2010, is only with respect to State of Uttar Pradesh and is not applicable to the services under the Central Government. Further, it is his submission, even if it is conclusively held that Tej Pal, is not an OBC, still, the petitioner would not get any benefit as in terms of the extant instructions, if a vacancy belonging to „Reserved‟ category is not filled, the same shall be carried forward for the next year.

8. Mr.Anil Singal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the submissions made by Mr. J.P.Sengh, would submit, the circular of DOPT dated March 12, 2015; the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Baljit Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and Ors. are concerned, the same have no applicability in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Naveen Dahiya Vs. Govt. of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) 2125/2014, decided on February 11, 2015 wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2010, arising out of SLP(C) No. 1952 of 2008, decided on January 8, 2010 and Indira Sawhney vs. UOI 1992(6) SLR 321, has held that the relaxation in age and concession in fee are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of the candidate to find out whether he can appear in competitive test or not and the same by itself do not provide any indica of open competition. In other words, even if Tej Pal has taken the benefit as an OBC candidate for the purpose of age relaxation and fee concession, still being at serial No. 1 in the merit, he would be appointed against an „Unreserved‟ vacancy, which would result in the appointment of the petitioner against an OBC vacancy.

13. In the case of Baljit Singh (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has in para Nos.2 & 3 held as under:-

2. The order dated 22.03.2011 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal") is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The Tribunal has taken a categorical view that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh's case specifically deals with U.P.Police Services (Reservation for SC and ST) Act, 1994 (for brevity "the Act") and the instructions issued thereunder. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is based on the statutory provisions and the instructions issued therein. It was laid down that in case a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes secure marks equivalent to the candidate belonging to general category then merely because he has been given relaxation in age by treating him eligible for the purposes of selection would not be a bar for considering such a candidate belonging to reserved category in general category. In other words, a candidate belonging to reserved category is permitted to consume a general category seat despite the fact that he has been given relaxation in age on the basis that he belonged to reserved category. However, in the present case, the instructions issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training on 22.5.1989 and 1.7.1998 (P-15) would provide otherwise. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforesaid instructions, it has been made clear that if a Scheduled Caste candidate has availed of any relaxed standard like the relaxation in age, then he cannot be considered against a general category seat even if he secures marks equivalent to the general category candidate. The paragraph, which was added on 1.7.1998 clarified the aforesaid situation in unmistakable terms, which is set out below:- "In this connection, it is clarified that only such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example in the age-limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates, etc., the SC/ST/OBC, candidate are to be counted against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies."
"39. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the General Category Candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates at par with General Category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates. It has been recognized by this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) that larger concept of reservation would include incidental and ancillary provisions with a view to make the main provision of reservation effective. In the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), it has been observed as under:-