Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission vs Ranjita Sahu & Anr. on 21 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st August, 2012
+ LPA No.574/2012
% STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna & Mr. Varun
Dubey, Advs.
Versus
RANJITA SAHU & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 16.05.2012 of the
learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.7023/2011 preferred by the
respondent No.1 herein by directing the appellant to issue appointment letter
to the respondent No.1 to the post of Assistant Archivist in the OBC
category and further preserving the seniority of the respondent No.1.
2. In the advertisement published by the appellant inviting applications
for the said post, the Authorities competent to issue Caste Certificate were
indicated inter alia as Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.
The respondent No.1 applied under the OBC category together with a
Certificate dated 20.01.2005 issued by the Additional Tehsildar, Balasore.
The respondent No.1 thereafter went through the selection process and was
vide communication dated 29.03.2011 of the appellant called for interview
with OBC Certificate "in the Government of India proforma issued on or
before 22.09.2009" which was the cut off date. The respondent No.1
appeared for the interview along with OBC Certificate aforesaid, dated
20.01.2005 issued by the Additional Tehsildar but endorsed / counter singed
by the Tehsildar, Balasore on 05.05.2011. The respondent No.1 was
however not selected. The respondent No.1 upon learning that the selected
candidate in the OBC category was ranked below her, first represented and
thereafter filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises, seeking
appointment in the OBC category.
3. The appellant contested the writ petition pleading that as per the
advertisement inviting applications for the aforesaid post, the Caste
Certificate was required to be of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of
Tehsildar; that the Caste Certificate submitted by the respondent No.1
however was issued by the Assistant Tehsildar and was thus not as per the
requirement; that the Caste Certificate counter signed / endorsed by the
Tehsildar and submitted by the respondent No.1 at the time of interview was
of a date after the cut off date and thus of no avail.
4. The learned Single judge has held that the factum of the respondent
No.1 belonging to the OBC category was not in dispute; that as per Section
1(d) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 a Revenue Officer
includes Additional Tehsildar; that the appellant itself had vide letter
inviting the respondent No.1 for interview granted further opportunity to the
respondent No.1 to furnish the requisite Caste Certificate and the respondent
No.1 within the time so granted had furnished the Caste Certificate as per
the requirement of the appellant; that the appellant ought not to have raised
such type of technical objections. It was further noticed that though the
total posts in the OBC category were seven in number but only one had
been filled up. Accordingly, the direction for appointment of the respondent
No.1 was issued.
5. The counsel for the appellant has argued that in the face of the
requirement of the Caste Certificate to be issued by a Revenue Officer not
below the rank of Tehsildar, the Orissa Rules supra did not come to the
rescue of the respondent No.1 since the same merely included Additional
Tehsildar in the definition of a Revenue Officer. It is further argued that the
appellant had in the letter inviting the respondent No.1 for interview not
granted any fresh opportunity to the respondent No.1 to furnish a fresh OBC
Certificate; rather the respondent No.1 was called to bring the OBC
Certificate issued on or before the cut off date of 22.09.2009. Attention is
also invited to the Circular dated 08.11.2010 of the Government of Orissa,
Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare Department, recording that prior
thereto the Caste Certificates were being issued by the Additional Tehsildar
but the same were not being entertained by the Government of India and
directing issuance of Caste Certificates thereafter only by Revenue Officers
not below the rank of Tehsildar.
6. Though we agree with the first two contentions of the counsel for the
appellant that in the face of the requirement in the advertisement inviting
applications, the Orissa Rules aforesaid were of no avail and that the letter
inviting the respondent No.1 for interview did not change the requirement in
the advertisement or grant any fresh opportunity to the respondent No.1 to
furnish a Certificate issued after the cut off date but we are still of the
opinion that in the entirety of the facts of this case, the order of the learned
Single judge does not call for any interference. The Circular dated
08.11.2010 of the Government of Orissa rather confirms that the practice
prevalent in the State of Orissa till then was of issuance of the Caste
Certificate by the Additional Tehsildar. Thus till the cut off date of
22.09.2009, it appears that it was not possible for the respondent No.1 to
obtain the Caste Certificate from the Tehsildar. The respondent No.1 thus
cannot be blamed of any negligence or default in not furnishing the Caste
Certificate issued by the Tehsildar. This coupled with the fact that the
vacancies existed in the OBC category and the respondent No.1 has
otherwise been found meritorious, we are of the opinion that the order of the
learned Single Judge is just and equitable.
7. The counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to our
judgment dated 24.01.2012 in LPA No.562/2011 titled Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya. However, that was a
case of non submission of OBC Certificate and thus cannot be said to be
applicable to the present controversy.
8. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the
same.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 21, 2012
„gsr‟
