Ranjita Sahu vs Ssc & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 3266 Del

$-21
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Decision : 16th May, 2012

+                        W.P.(C) No. 7023/2011

       RANJITA SAHU                            ..... Petitioner
                              Through:    Mr. Bhagwati Prasad,
                                          Advocates.
                     versus

       SSC & ANR                                  .... Respondents
                              Through:    Ms. Sweety Manchanda, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CM NO. 1799/2012 Application allowed on the grounds stated in the application. Consequently, the petition is restored to its original number. WP(C NO. 7023/2011

1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the instant petition is taken for final disposal.

2. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to quash and set aside the Memorandum dated 13th July, 2011 passed by the respondent no.1 as under :-

"With reference to candidate's representation dated 9.6.2011, wherein, Mrs. Ranjita Sahu, Roll No. 0901250172 has not submitted the OBC certificate in Govt. of India proforma issued/counter signed by Competent Authority specified in the format before the closing date of the application i.e, 22.9.2009, and the OBC certificate submitted by her is not valid for this

subject selection as per notice of the examination published in the Employment News. However, the date of birth of candidate is 3.7.1980 and so therefore, she has been considered as UR candidate for the above mentioned post.

This is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Commission."

3. Also sought directions be issued to the respondent no.1 to treat the OBC certificate i.e, Miscellaneous Certificate Act of 2005 issued on 20th January, 2005 and counter signed by the Tehsildar on 5th May, 2011 as valid certificate. Consequently, considered the petitioner for the post reserved for the OBC candidate.

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as „OBC‟). She applied for the post of Assistant Archivist against the vacancy of post reserved for the OBC category. At the time of applying for the said post i.e, on 17 th September, 2009, the petitioner annexed the OBC certificate mentioned above, issued by the Tehsildar Balasore, District- Balasore, State of Orissa, in the format prescribed for the appointment to the post under the Government of India. However, the certificate was signed by the Additional Tehsildar for the Tehsildar.

5. It is stated in the petition that as per the format of caste certificate required for the appointment of the post under the Government of India, the competent authority to sign the certificate is the „Revenue Officer‟ not below the rank of Tehsildar. As per Section 1 (d) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, "A Revenue Officer", means the Chief Officer in charge of the Revenue administration in the District, Sub-Division or Tehsil and includes an

Additional District Magistrate and an Additional Tehsildar.

6. It is further stated that after the interview, for said post, was over on 21st April, 2011, the respondent no.1 vide its letter dated 28th April, 2011 (sent on 2nd May, 2011) directed the petitioner to submit OBC certificate in the Government of India format, issued on or before 22nd September, 2009 counter signed/signed by the Tehsildar or above authority of Balasore, within 7 days from the issue of the said letter. On 9th May, 2011 , the petitioner within the time stipulated in the letter dated 28th April, 2011, submitted the OBC caste certificate dated 20th January, 2005 counter signed by the Tehsildar, Balasore (Annexure - P/8). The petitioner also submitted a certificate of Tehsildar, Balasore dated 5th May, 2011 confirming the issuance of the earlier certificate dated 20th January, 2005. The same is annexed with the petition as Annexure P/9.

7. The result of 11 candidates were published on 27th May, 2011 and the result of the petitioner along with four other candidates were withheld. Thereafter, on 3rd June, 2011, the result of other four candidates were published and all of them were declared as selected whereas the petitioner‟s result remained withheld.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made representation on 9th June, 2011 to the respondent no.1 and explained the details of certificate submitted by her. The petitioner also requested that in case there is a problem regarding her caste certificate, she may be allowed to present her case in front of the members of the Board.

9. In response to the petitioner‟s representation dated 9th June, 2011, mentioned above, after a gap of more than one month, the respondent no.1 vide the impugned memorandum dated 13 th July,

2011 informed that the OBC certificate submitted by the petitioner is not valid and considered the petitioner as un-reserved category.

10. Due to the decision of the respondent no.1 ,only one candidate has been selected against the seven posts reserved for the OBC category. The petitioner came to know that she has been placed on Rank no. 14. The other OBC candidate who has been selected and placed at Rank no.15.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant petition, this Court passed the order dated 23rd September, 2011, which reads as under:-

"The Petitioner's OBC certificate was issued on th 20 January, 2005 in the format of Central Government and signed by the Additional Tehsildar of Balasore District in Orissa. However, as of that date it was ot counter signed by the competent authority, i9.e, Tehsildar Balasore. When the petitioner produced the said certificate she was asked by the respondent Staff Selection Commission (SSC) by a letter dated 28th April,. 2011 to submit the OBC certificate counter signed/signed by Tehsildar or above authority of Balasore within 7 days from issue of this letter. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tehsildar and got the same certificate dated 20th January, 2005 countersigned by the Tehsildar on 5th May, 2011. The impugned memorandum dated 13th July, 2011 issued by the SSC states that the said certificate submitted by the petitioner is not valid since it is not counter signed by the Tehsildar before the closing date of the application i.e, 22.9.2009." It is not understood how the petitioners could have got the certificate in question countersigned prior to 22nd September, 2009 when the letter of the SSC requiring her to get such certificate countersigned was issued only on 28th April, 2011."

12. Notice was accepted by Ms. Sweety Manchanda, learned

Standing Counsel for the Union of India appearing on behalf of the respondents and stated that she will have to seek instructions.

13. It is further directed by the said order that if the OBC quota in the post of Assistant Archivist has not been filled up as yet, it will not be filled up, till the next date of hearing.

14. Only issue raised in the instant petition is; whether the OBC certificate issued on 20th January, 2005 signed by the Additional Tehsildar for the Tehsildar and thereafter, on raising the objection same has been counter signed by the Tehsildar, vide its letter dated 28th April, 2011, is valid?

15. On the date of hearing i.e. on 11th November, 2011, learned Standing Counsel raised objection of jurisdiction. Despite of this fact, this Court passed the order mentioned above. Therefore, I am also of the considered opinion that under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue raised in the instant petition.

16. Ms. Sweety Manchanda, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as was required by the advertisement that the OBC certificate would be issued on the perform of Central Government. The authority prescribed is Tehsildar, whereas, the certificate produced by the petitioner has been signed by the Additional Tehsildar, not by the Tehsildar. Therefore, the said certificate not as per the advertisement issued by respondent no.2, though it is on the perform of Central Government.

17. I am of the considered opinion, keeping in view Section 1(d) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, referred above, Tehsildar includes Additional Tehsildar.

18. Although, the respondent should not have raised such type of technical objections; however, the petitioner complied with the same by getting the countersigned from the Tehsildar concerned vide dated 5th May, 2011. Additionally, confirmed the earlier certificate dated 20th January, 2005, as genuine & valid by issuing letter thereto.

19. The total posts raised for the OBC category were 7 in numbers, however as stated in the petition, only one post has been filled up in the category of the OBC.

20. Even otherwise, vide order dated 23rd September, 2011, this Court directed if the OBC quota in the post of Assistant Archivist has not been filled up as yet, it will not be filled up till the next date of hearing. This interim order continued till date.

21. In the facts and circumstances, the respondent no.1 shall issue appointment letter to the petitioner in OBC category within one week from today. The seniority of the petitioner shall remain intact.

22. Instant petition allowed in the above terms.

23. No order as to costs.

24. A copy of this order be given Dasti to learned counsel for both the parties.

SURESH KAIT, J MAY 16, 2012 p