Delhi High Court
Shanti Kumari vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 27 November, 2015
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C).10976/2015
% Judgment dated 27th November, 2015
SHANTI KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Vishi Sharma, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi for Mr. Devesh
Singh, Additional Standing Counsel for
the respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to for short as „the
Tribunal‟) by which an OA filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
2. An advertisement was published by the respondents in November, 2009 in
the Employment News inviting applications for various posts as mentioned
in the advertisement no.004/2009. Another advertisement was published in
December, 2009 and thereafter in February-March, 2010, a notification was
issued regarding the examination schedule for different posts including
Post Code 70/09 and 71/09. The examination was scheduled for
23.05.2010. Earlier advertisement which was published was amended in
September, 2011. The amendment related to educational qualifications.
Further applications were invited from the prospective candidates who
were qualified as on 15.01.2010. It was made clear that candidates who
had already submitted their applications forms in response to the
advertisement no.004/2009 were not required to apply again except to
deposit an additional fee of Rs.50/-. No obligation was cast upon them.
The candidates who wished to apply based on the subsequent amendment
were to submit their documents between 16.09.2011 and 17.09.2011. In
the months of March-April, 2014, a notification was issued with respect to
the dates of examination. Examination were to be held on 29.12.2013, but
were postponed to 02.02.2014. The petitioner appeared in the examination
conducted by the respondents and secured 74.5 marks in the examination.
The petitioner was not successful in the General Category in which she had
applied. It is at that stage, the petitioner procured an OBC Certificate and
submitted an application dated 04.04.2011 and requested the respondent to
treat her candidature as an OBC candidate. The representation of the
petitioner was not accepted which led to the filing of the OA which stands
dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before this Court that
in view of the subsequent amendment since the candidates were entitled to
apply afresh, the petitioner should have been given similar advantage and
in case the petitioner would have applied afresh, the subsequent OBC
Certificate procured by her was bound to be considered. She further
submits that the Certificate is a genuine document and there should be no
reason why the respondents should not consider the same and grant her the
post. It is also urged before this Court that in the case of Minor V.
Harshan v. The Chairman, JEE-2012 and Another, [W.P.(MD) No.7078
of 2012] decided on 20.07.2012, the Madras High Court had permitted the
candidate to submit the OBC Certificate at a let stage and thus similar relief
should be granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents who enters appearance on advance
copy submits that the amendments made it abundantly clear that the cut off
date for the eligibility remained unchanged which is 15.01.2010 and even
those candidates who applied pursuant to the amendment were to be
considered based on the eligibility date i.e. 15.01.2010. It is further
submitted that the petitioner had applied as a General Candidate and on the
date of submission of the application, she did not have the OBC Certificate
which admittedly has been procured on a date much later than the cut off
date and the last date of filing up the application forms. It is further
contended that the petitioner can gain no advantage as the amendment was
carried out in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the OA which
has been filed before them.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the judgment
of the Tribunal and also the advertisement which was published by the
respondents. The relevant part of the advertisement reads as under:
"Besides above, the prospective eligible candidates, who
fulfill the eligibility conditions as on 15-01-2010, can also apply
against advt. no.004/2009 for the said posts on the prescribed
form as given in section-D of the said advt. which can be down
loaded from the Board‟s website www.dsssb.delhigovt.nic.in.
The application form must be accompanied with a fee of Rs.100/-
as per the mode of payment detailed above. Applicants
belonging to SC/ST/PH category will be exempted for payment
of the requisite fee subject to submission of duly attested copies
of relevant certificates in support of their claim. The prospective
candidates must read the detailed instructions along with terms
and conditions mentioned in advt. no.004/2009 before applying
for the above posts. The candidates who have already submitted
their application form in response to advt. no.004/2009 are not
required to apply again except for depositing the additional fee of
Rs.50/- as mentioned above." (Emphasis added)
6. In this case, admittedly pursuant to an advertisement in November, 2009 in
the Employment News, the petitioner had applied for the Post Code 70/09
and 71/09 as a General candidate. Subsequently, the earlier advertisement
published in November, 2009 was amended in September, 2011, but the
eligibility conditions remained unchanged i.e. the candidates had to fulfill
the eligibility conditions as on 15.01.2010. It is not in dispute that not only
the petitioner applied in the General category but the petitioner also did not
have a OBC Certificate which she procured on 04.04.2011.
7. Since it is not in dispute that the eligibility date in the amendment was
15.01.2010 and the fact that the petitioner was able to procure the OBC
Certificate on 04.04.2011, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the
Tribunal. We have also examined the judgment in the case of Minor V.
Harshan(supra). A reading of this judgment would show that in that
matter the last date fixed was 10.06.2012 by 5:00 P.M. by which date the
undertakings or certificates were to be filed and the petitioner in the said
case sent the declaration and submitted the OBC Certificate on 01.06.2012
which was within the cut off date and thus, the aforesaid case would not
apply to the facts of the present case. We find no grounds to interfere in
the judgment of the Tribunal.
8. The writ petition is without any merits; the same is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
CM.APPL 28254/2015(stay)
9. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 27, 2015
pst
