Usha vs Institute Of Banking Personnel ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1350 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 1878/2014
%                                                    13th February, 2015

USHA                                                 ..... Petitioner

                          Through:       Mr. U. Srivastava, Adv.

                          versus

INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR & ORS.                         ..... Respondents

                          Through:       Mr. Rajat Arora, Advs. for R-1 and 2.

                                         Mr. O.P.Gaggar, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, petitioner had challenged the action of the respondent no.1 in not

declaring her successful for being appointed to the post of Rajbhasha

Adhikari (Scale-I) with the Central Government organizations/banks for

whom the respondent no.1 conducts the necessary examination. The reason

for denying appointment to the petitioner was that the petitioner on the date

of the interview had to bring the Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate,

but the petitioner did not bring the requisite OBC certificate.
W.P.(C) 1878/2014                                                           Page 1 of 3
 2.            The date of the interview on which the petitioner had to bring

the OBC certificate was 18.3.2014 and the petitioner before this date had

applied for the certificate but the governmental authorities from whom the

certificate was applied, did not give the same, and therefore the petitioner

could not bring the OBC certificate on the date of the interview, and which

is the reason for denying employment to the petitioner in the OBC category.


3.            In law, citizens of this country and the common man cannot be

caused prejudice because of lethargy of government departments in issuing

of OBC certificates and the requirement of the respondent no.1 or an

employer organization to have an OBC certificate only and essentially

means that before the cut-off date a candidate must apply for the OBC

certificate, and even if the same is not given before the cut-off date inasmuch

as what is the time taken by the governmental authorities for giving of a

certificate is not in the hands of the common man, not giving of the OBC

certificate in such a case should not go against the candidate.


4.            In this case, an interim order was passed by this Court on

8.5.2014 whereby one post was asked to be reserved for the petitioner and

the respondents were asked to intimate this to the respondent no.3 viz the

Union Bank of India.

W.P.(C) 1878/2014                                                           Page 2 of 3
 5.            Today, dehors the controversy in the case, it is jointly agreed by

the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.3/Union Bank of India that the

petitioner is selected in the unreserved category because she has received

marks entitling her to succeed in the unreserved category and therefore

petitioner will be given appointment letter for the post of Rajbhasha

Adhikari (Scale-I) in the respondent no.3/Union Bank of India, however, the

petitioner for all her future career prospects will be treated as an OBC

candidate.


6.            In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in view of

the agreed stand taken on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 and therefore

petitioner, subject to her giving the necessary testimonials/documents, either

to the respondents no. 1 or 3, and on the same being appropriately verified,

the requisite appointment will be given by the respondent no.3 within a

period of four weeks from today.


7.            The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the

aforesaid observations.



FEBRUARY 13, 2015                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib