Narvir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 991 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Decided on: February 20, 2017

+       W.P.(C) 1863/2016
        NARVIR SINGH                                ..... Petitioner
                 Through:           Mr.Krishna Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

                           versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS                ...... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA

                                ORDER

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 10.09.2014

passed by the Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region

being the respondent No.2, cancelling the candidature of the

petitioner for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector in the

Border Security Force (BSF).

2. Pursuant to an employment notification in the „Employment

News‟ published on 16.03.2013, inter alia for recruitment of ===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.5952/2016

Sub Inspectors in the Central Armed Police Forces, the

petitioner applied.

3. The petitioner, who belongs to the „Jat‟ community of Haryana

applied as a candidate of the "Other Backward Classes" (OBC).

The petitioner claims that he is an OBC candidate under

Category IV as he belongs to the Jat Community, but not to the

creamy layer.

4. The petitioner claims that he qualified in the Written

Examination, after which, the petitioner had to appear for an

interview on 19.03.2014. According to the petitioner, the

petitioner secured 235 marks and he also qualified in the

Physical and the Medical tests. The petitioner states that even

though candidates of the „ OBC‟ Category, who had secured

195 marks were sent for training, the petitioner was not sent for

training.

5. By a letter dated 10.09.2014, the petitioner was informed that

his candidature had been cancelled, as he did not belong to the

===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.5952/2016

„OBC‟ Category and was to be treated as a candidate of the

General Category.

6. On 31.10.2014, the respondent sought verification of the

genuineness of the OBC certificate issued to the petitioner by

the Tehsildar, which was verified by the Tehsildar, Haryana and

by letter dated 11.11.2014, the Tehsildar confirmed that the

certificate was genuine.

7. The petitioner contends that persons, who belong to the „OBC‟

Category are entitled to be treated as candidates of the „OBC‟

Category and given the benefit of reservations for the „OBC‟

Category candidates, even though there may have been some

delay in ascertaining his „OBC‟ status.

8. There can be no doubt with the proposition that a person

belongs to any particular class, caste or community from the

time of birth, for example a person is born in a scheduled caste

family. Similarly a person may be born in a family of the

„OBC‟ category. Once a candidate of the „OBC‟ category or the

===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.5952/2016

„Scheduled Caste‟ category or the „Scheduled Tribe‟ category,

is allowed to participate in the selection process, he cannot be

treated as a General Category candidate, only because of delay

in verification of his status as an „OBC‟ or „Scheduled Caste‟ or

„Scheduled Tribe‟ Candidate. However, in this case, the

petitioner admittedly belongs to a Jat family from Haryana. In

Ram Singh and Others Vs. Union of India reported in 2015

(4) SCC 697, cited on behalf of the respondents, the Supreme

Court has held that the Jats in inter alia the State of Haryana are

not included in the „OBC‟ category.

9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J February 20, 2017/ n

===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.5952/2016