Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar And Anr. vs D.S.S.S.B. And Ors. on 23 February, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The grievance in these proceedings is that the Petitioners' case for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.6.1998 was not considered. The Petitioners seek a direction that they ought to be selected and appointed to the post on the basis of an OBC certificate.
2. The Respondents had called for applications for recruitment of several posts of Assistant Teachers. The Petitioners had applied as a general candidates. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was entitled to an OBC certificate.
3. The first Respondent DSSSB issued an advertisement on 21/22.9.1998 indicating the methodology of consideration of candidates for selection. The last date for submission of applications was 30.6.1998. The Petitioners had however not applied as OBC candidate; they applied as general candidates. It is averred that they were unable to secure the certificate because the period granted was too short. On 26.2.1999 the DSSSB indicated the revised cut off score in accordance with its criteria beyond which the candidates were not to be appointed. The score for general candidates was 53.21.
4. The entire petition is premised on the footing that the Petitioners' case ought to have been considered on the basis of being OBC candidates.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another Vs. Tej Pal Singh and others, LPA No.304/2000, Vs. Govt. of NCT decided on 15.12.2000 to the effect that there was no last date mentioned in the application of OBC certificate. She submitted that the appeal against that decision as also the review proceedings has affirmed the decision of the Single Judge. It was therefore, submitted that the Petitioners were entitled to be considered as OBC candidates.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioners never indicated that they were OBC candidates in the application forms. Therefore, they could not have sought a modification of the application on the basis of a certificate obtained later. It was submitted that the controversy in Tejpal Singh's case (supra) was not as to the treatment of general candidates as OBC candidates but whether the candidates obtaining OBC certificates from state agencies outside the NCT of Delhi were entitled to be treated as such.
7. Counsel submitted that the controversy has been set at rest and as a result, OBC certificates issued outside Delhi are entitled to be considered provided such candidates had applied in the first instance in the reserved category. In the present case that the controversy is covered by the judgment in Meena Yadav Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, in LPA 825/2002 decided on 1.11.2002 and Sunita Verma Vs. MCD and others, in LPA No.95/2005 decided on 31.1.2005.
8. The order in Sunita Verma's case (supra) reads as follows :-
A public advertisement dated 28.07.1996 was issued for the posts of Primary Teachers and the appellant applied in the `General category and as against the column of SC/ST/OBC/Ex-Servicemen/PH, she endorsed `N.A.'. The application was considered in the `General' category and the appellant was not selected. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that she belongs to OBC category and that she had applied on 25.07.1996 for the grant of certificate, which was issued on 17.09.1996. The certificate was, however, submitted only on 25.04.1997. This was before the last extended date for submission of such certificate being 31.05.1997. There is no doubt that the appellant would have been eligible to be considered as an OBC candidate if the application had been so made. The only reason for rejection of the application of the appellant was that she never applied in the category of OBC candidates. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the respondents are at fault in not considering the application of the appellant as an OBC candidate and this aspect has been considered by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. It may also to be noted that pursuant to the advertisement in question, even subsequent advertisements were issued for the posts of Primary Teachers, but the appellant never applied for the same and is now aged about 41 years and is not eligible to apply.
9. In view of the factual narrative and the undisputed position that the Petitioners had not applied as OBC candidates in the first instance, but are now coming forward claiming to be OBC candidates, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench in Meena Yadav's case (supra) and Sunita Verma's case (supra) are squarely applicable in the facts of the case.
10. The petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that this order shall not be construed as an impediment for the consideration of the Petitioners' candidature on the basis of the OBC certificates if they choose to apply as such OBC candidates in future recruitment and the department shall consider the Petitioners' case on their merit.
