Mukesh Kumar Yadav And Anr vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 95 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: January 07, 2013


+                            W.P.(C) 55/2013

       MUKESH KUMAR YADAV AND ANR                ..... Petitioners
                  Represented by: Mr.Rajender Yadav, Advocate

                    versus

       GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                    Represented by: Ms.Zubeda Begam with Ms.Sana
                                    Ansari, Advocates


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.116/2013

For the reasons stated in the application, 101 days' delay in refiling the writ petition is condoned.

CM No.115/2013 For the reasons stated in the application, the exemption as prayed for is granted.

W.P.(C) 55/2013 & CM No.114/2013

1. The facts are not in dispute.

2. Responding to the advertisement No.04/2007 issued by D.S.S.S.B., claiming to OBC candidates, petitioners submitted their application and along therewith furnished a certificate not issued by the competent authority W.P.(C) 55/2013 page 1 of 3 at Delhi; and contrary to the directions contained in the advertisement that a person who claims to be SC, ST or OBC must obtain and furnish the certificate as per proforma prescribed from the competent authority in Delhi. The petitioners attempted to do so after the last cut-off date i.e. January 21, 2008. The result is that the Staff Selection Commission has not treated the petitioners as OBC candidates. This in turn has resulted in the petitioners not being issued letters offering appointment inasmuch as though they have obtained marks above the cut-off point in the OBC category they have not been treated as OBC candidates.

3. The issue is no longer res integra. In the decision report as 2012 (128) DRJ 124 (DB) DSSSB & Anr. vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya & Ors. noting various authorities on the point a Divison Bench of this Court held that a distinction needs to be drawn where no cut-off dates are prescribed and those where cut-off dates are prescribed. Whenever cut-off dates are prescribed and it specifies that not only the applications but annexures thereto have to be filed on or before cut-off date any corrective action after the cut-off date would be irrelevant.

4. Petitioners concede that after the cut-off date they had attempted to rectify the earlier submitted applications by obtaining OBC certificate from the competent authority at Delhi.

5. We eschew from making a reference to the various authorities attempted to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner by simply highlighting that all such authorities deal with certificates filed where no cut-off date were prescribed except the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2627/2006 U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Satya Narayan Sheohare & Ors. which is distinguishable on its peculiar facts. In the said case, the caste in question was declared as OBC caste after the cut- off date and it is in said context that the Supreme Court had upheld the view W.P.(C) 55/2013 page 2 of 3 taken by the High Court that those candidates whose caste was declared OBC after the cut-off date would be treated as OBC candidates.

6. Vide impugned decision dated May 7, 2012 the Tribunal has noted that the last cut-off date was January 21, 2008 and when petitioners submitted the applications the OBC certificates annexed by them were not issued by the competent authority and only after the results were declared that the petitioners attempted to correct the error by obtaining necessary OBC certificates from the competent authority. The Tribunal has held that such correction could not take place after the notified cut-off date.

7. We only add that in India where thousands apply even for one post, it creates administrative chaos if applicants would be permitted to rectify defective application(s) after the cut off dates. Permitting so would render the scrutiny process indefinite.

8. In view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar's case (supra) and following the reasoning therein, we dismiss the writ petition in limine but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2013 srb

W.P.(C) 55/2013 page 3 of 3