Rajinder Prasad vs The Chairman, Dsssb Of Nct Of Delhi ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1263 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in NDMC, pursuant to an advertisement published on 11.6.1998. Petitioner applied as an OBC candidate. OBC certificate issued from the Competent Authority of the NCT of Delhi was dated 14.10.98. Petitioner has been denied appointment on the ground that the certificate was required to be submitted by the cut-off date i.e. 30.6.981 Petitioner having failed to do so, his candidature was rejected.

2. This question of cut-off date had been considered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Tejpal Singh and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., reported at 2000 II AD Delhi 428.

Counsel submits that the advertisement was the same as in the present case. Learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no requirement to furnish the SC certificate by the last date referred to as the cut off date i.e. 30.6.98.

Learned Single Judge had taken note of the fact that the vacancies had not even been filled up. It was also held that the requirement to furnish the certificate issued by NCT prior to 30.6.98 could not be insisted upon and such a certificate could be furnished subsequently. Reference was also made to SC (UT order of 1951) which provided for appointment being made provisionally subject to verification of the SC or ST certificate. Further provision of appointments could also be made when such certificates were not produced. In the affidavit filed by the respondents the only ground taken to deny the appointment is that the requisite certificate from NCT was not furnished by 30.6.98.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied on the following observations of the learned Single Judge in Tejpal Singh's case. While referring to Anshu Yadav v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., it was noted in Tejpal Singh's case as under:

"It may further be noted that OBC status of the candidate could be recognised only after the issuance of the certificate."

Relying on the above observations, Counsel for the respondents submits that recognition of OBC status could only be given after issuance of the certificate. Let us consider this aspect.

4. Petitioner had applied by the due date giving his OBC status. OBC certificate issued by the competent authority is dated 14.10.98 has been furnished in December, 1998, prior to the finalisation of the results. The recognition of Koiree as an OBC caste to which the petitioner belongs in the NCT of Delhi, is by a notification issued on 20.1.95. Accordingly, Koiree caste was duly recognised as an OBC in NCT of Delhi. It is held that once the recognition as an OBC is of year 1995, and the petitioner has finally produced this certificate, no further question of doubt could arise with regard to the petitioner belonging to the OBC class. The judgment in the case of Tejpal Singh's (supra) has been upheld by a comprehensive judgment by Division Bench in LPA 304/2000. The SLP preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench has also been dismissed.

5. Before parting with the case, the learned Counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that Division Bench of this Court in LPA 825/2002 and CM 1757-58/2002 i.e. Meena Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. while referring to the decision in Anand Lal Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., In LPA 541/ 2002 (wrongly typed as 541/2001) had reproduced the observations in the said case, which are extracted below for facility of reference.

"In any event, we do not agree with the view expressed in Tej Pal Singh's case (supra) that the OBC certificates issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi could be submitted (after 30.6.98, the cut-off date fixed for the receipt of the applications)."

I am not persuaded to accept this submission. Learned Single Judge in Tejpal Singh's case (supra) has examined in detail the text of the advertisement and the entire legal position. He has also held that 30.6.98, was not a cut-off date prescribed for submissions of the SC, OBC certificates and these could be submitted later. Reliance had also been placed on the Government orders and instructions for providing for the appointment of SC, OBC candidates on provisional basis, pending verification of the said status as also of submission of the certificates.

6. Counsel for the respondents stated that review has also been preferred against the Division Bench's judgment in LPA 304/2000 i.e. Tejpal Singh and the matter should therefore be deferred. This review petition has been preferred after the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents had been dismissed. Considering that petitioners as well as others are to be appointed, giving the benefit of the seniority and continuity of service, but without the benefit of back wages, no useful purpose would be served by avoiding or deferring these matters.

7. Be that as it may, the detailed judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by reasoned judgment by the Division Bench in LPA 304/2000, The SLP against the same has also been dismissed. As against this we have the observations made by another Division Bench, which does not contain any detailed reasonings or any ground for retracting the decision of the Division Bench in LPA 304/2000.

8. I, therefore, have no hesitation in following the decision of Tejpal Singh's case (supra). Following the above decision, this writ petition is bound to be allowed and is allowed. The petitioner, if otherwise found eligible by the respondents is to be appointed. The petitioner would be entitled to the seniority and benefit of continuity of service but no back wages from the date the person below him in the merit list has got appointed in the OBC category.

In any case, if the petitioners succeeds in review, legal consequences shall ensue.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in above terms.