Recently, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed AIIMS to reinstate a candidate whose appointment was denied on hyper-technical grounds despite his continued OBC (NCL) status. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applicant's candidature for the post of Pharmacist, despite furnishing valid OBC (NCL) certificates, was arbitrary and discriminatory. The case revolved around a procedural dispute regarding the timing of submission of the OBC (NCL) certificate, where the applicant had ranked first in his category but was denied appointment. Significantly, the Tribunal observed that “OBC status is not acquired by an event but is a matter of birth; certificates only affirm this fact.”
Brief Facts:
The applicant had responded to AIIMS’ recruitment advertisement in November 2022 for the post of Pharmacist Grade-II under the OBC (NCL) category. He appeared in the examination held in March 2023 and secured the first rank in the OBC (NCL) list with 64 marks. However, document verification was delayed and completed only in May 2023, during which the applicant submitted the required OBC (NCL) certificate.
He initially submitted an OBC (NCL) certificate issued in 2015, renewed in April 2023, and accompanied it with a clarification letter from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate certifying his non-creamy layer status for the financial year 2022–23. Despite these submissions, AIIMS cancelled his candidature citing the absence of an OBC (NCL) certificate covering exactly the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The applicant contended that he had consistently belonged to the OBC (NCL) category and supported his claim with multiple certificates. He relied heavily on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Priyanka Rani v. UOI, where the Court had rejected a hyper-technical approach regarding the timing of submission of caste certificates. It was emphasized that the applicant's community status did not change with time, and thus he remained eligible for the reserved post throughout.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for AIIMS argued that the applicant failed to submit the required certificate within the stipulated cut-off period, i.e., covering FY 2022–23. The selection committee, after reviewing all documents, found that the certificate did not meet the prescribed criteria. It was further argued that relaxing such conditions would compromise the fairness of the selection process and prejudice similarly situated candidates who adhered to all terms of the advertisement.
They also pointed out that the applicant had earlier approached the Delhi High Court but had withdrawn the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal.
Observations of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal examined the documentation and judicial precedents in depth. It noted that the applicant had submitted not one but three OBC (NCL) certificates: one dated 08.05.2015, another renewed on 21.04.2023, and a third dated 10.05.2023 certifying non-creamy layer status for FY 2022–23. Despite this, his candidature was cancelled on the ground of non-submission of a certificate strictly within the cut-off timeframe.
Citing Priyanka Rani, the Tribunal observed, "The applicant was an OBC (NCL) on the cut-off date, at the time of advertisement, and remains so today. The respondents have taken a hyper-technical view."
It further referred to the ruling in Ravi Kumar v. AIIMS, affirmed by both the Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court, which settled the legal position that, “A person is OBC by birth, not by acquisition. The certificate is merely an affirmation of that status. Arbitrarily fixed cut-off dates should not be used to deny substantive rights.”
The Tribunal also highlighted that denying appointment on such grounds would violate Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment.
The decision of the Tribunal:
In view of the foregoing discussion and after considering the material on record, the Tribunal finds merit in the present OA and accordingly allows it. The impugned order dated 30.11.2023 cancelling the candidature of the applicant for the post of Pharmacist (Erstwhile Pharmacist Grade II) at AIIMS, Delhi, is hereby quashed and set aside, being arbitrary and discriminatory.
The respondents are directed to consider the applicant for appointment to the said post, he being otherwise meritorious, having secured first rank in the OBC (NCL) category with 64 marks out of 100 and an overall rank of 13. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant shall be entitled to all notional benefits, including fixation of pay, allowances, and seniority. However, he shall not be entitled to arrears of pay, applying the principle of 'No Work, No Pay'. There shall be no order as to costs.
Case Title: Praveen vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Case No.: O.A. No. 3799/2024
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Divyansh Hanu Rathi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. V. S. R. Krishna, Sumit Chander, Gurdeep Chauhan
Read Judgment @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
