Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission & Ors. vs Shri Asif Ali Zaved on 9 December, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C).11426/2015
% Judgment Dated 9th December, 2015
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. S.M. Arif, Advocate
versus
SHRI ASIF ALI ZAVED ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL 30134 /2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C).11426/2015
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to for short as 'the
Tribunal') by which the OA filed by the respondent has been allowed.
4. The respondent pursuant to an Employment Notice dated 05.04.2008
applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2008. He
participated in the Tier-I examination as an OBC candidate. The
respondent was declined appointment on the ground that the OBC
Certificate dated 22.04.1997 enclosed by him with the application form
was more than three years old and another Certificate dated 27.10.2008 was
issued after closing date of submission of application form.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has failed to
take into account the terms of para IV(a) of the Schedule to OM dated
08.09.1993, as per which only such persons who do not possess annual
income of Rs.1.0 lakh or above or the wealth above the exemption limit as
prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years
would be eligible for the benefits of age relaxation/reservation in the OBC
category. Further, the Certificate which was required to be submitted
should have been issued within three years preceding the closing date for
submission of the application. The learned counsel contends that since the
Certificate of the respondent was more than three years old and the
subsequent Certificate obtained by him was issued after the cut off date i.e.
27.10.2008, he could not have been given benefit of reservation.
6. We find that the Tribunal has considered this submission made by the
petitioners and rightly rejected the same for the reason that the contents of
the OM sought to be relied upon by the petitioners was not part of the
advertisement and in the absence thereof, the respondent cannot be made to
suffer, more particularly when he was eligible which is evident from the
fact that after learning about the objection raised by the petitioners, he
procured fresh Certificate dated 27.10.2008. We find no ground to
interfere. There is no illegality or infirmity, which requires interference in
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
CM.APPL 30133/2015(stay)
8. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 09 , 2015
pst
