Delhi High Court
Sucheta vs Union Of India And Anr. on 15 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2347/2017
% 15th March, 2017
SUCHETA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.S. Chaudhary and Mr. Ajay
Chaudhar, Advocates with petitioner
in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Dabas, Advocate for UOI.
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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks the relief of quashing of the impugned order dated
3.3.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2/employer cancelling the
appointment of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was
cancelled on the ground that petitioner got employment with the respondent
no. 2 in the reserved Other Backward Classes (OBC) category under the
„Jat‟ caste, but the Jat caste is no longer an OBC in the Central List of OBCs
in view of the judgment in the case of Ram Singh and Others Vs. Union of
India, (2015) 4 SCC 697. The impugned order dated 3.3.2017 reads as
under:-
"INDIAN PHARMACOPOEIA COMMISSION
MIN. OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SECTOR-23, RAJ NAGAR, GHAZIABAD - 201002
File No. IPC/1056/2015-16 Date: 3rd March, 2017.
To,
Dr. Sucheta
Sr. Scientific Officer
Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission
Sector - 23, Raj Nagar,
Ghaziabad - 201002.
Sub: Cancelation of the appointment in the Post of Sr. Scientific Officer in OBC
Category - Reg.
In response to the open advertisement published in July, 2014, for filling of four
vacant posts of Senior Scientific Officer (2-UR, 1-OBC and 1-SC) by direct
recruitment, Dr. Sucheta had applied against the post reserved for Other Backward
Classes (OBC) as a candidate from Jat community of non-creamy layer.
2. She was given the benefit of reservation under OBC category, based on
her documented claim, and as per the reservation criteria effective as on the last
date for receipt of applications in August, 2014 relying upon the Notification
(No.20012/129/2009-BC-II, dated the 4th March, 2014 issued by Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment), which included that JAT community-non
creamy layer - in the Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBC). After going
through the required procedures, she had joined the duties on the post of Senior
Scientific Officer on 3rd August, 2016.
3. Meanwhile, the aforesaid Notification was challenged in Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India and the Hon‟ble Apex Court had disagreed with
notification vide the order dated 17th March, 2015. The subsequent Review
Petition filed on 4th April, 2015 was also dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on
21st July, 2015.
4. In view of the above, the matter was reviewed in respect of JAT
Community- non-creamy layer-being a part of reservation for OBC. While
relying of the orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court dated 17th March, 2015, the
Ministry of Health & FW has directed that Dr. Sucheta was not entitled to the
benefit of reservation under OBC category and her appointment to the post of
Senior Scientific Officer in IPC stands cancelled and she is relieved of her duties
with immediate effect. {i.e. 3rd March, 2017 (AN)}.
Sd/-
(Dr. G.N. Singh)
Secretary-cum-Scientific Director"
2. Admittedly, the petitioner got appointment with the respondent
no. 2 in the reserved category of OBC as a Jat caste. The appointment of
the petitioner with the respondent no. 2 is in terms of the formal letter of
appointment to the petitioner dated 29.8.2016.
3. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh
(supra) was delivered on 17.3.2015. After 17.3.2015, therefore, no
appointment can take place in an organization of a candidate by the
candidate claiming that the candidate is in the OBC category of Jat caste in
the Central List. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh (Supra)
quashed the inclusion of Jat caste in the Central List of OBCs. After the
main judgment was delivered in Ram Singh's case (supra) on 17.3.2015, in
that case of Ram Singh (Supra) an application was moved for clarification
as regards what should happen to the appointments which existed of OBCs
under the Jat caste prior to passing of the judgment in the case of Ram
Singh (Supra), and in this regard the Supreme Court has passed a
clarification order on 12.4.2016 as under:-
"1. Application(s) for impleadment are allowed.
2. The interlocutory applications before us can be conveniently divided into three
categories. The first is where the applicants have been appointed as Probationary
Officers before the date of the judgment i.e. 17.03.2015 in Writ Petition (C)
No.274 of 2014, titled as Ram Singh & Ors vs. Union of India.
3. The second category of applicants are those who had commenced the
diploma/training course in Banking prior to the date of judgment i.e. 17.03.2015.
The advertisement issued and the offer to undergo the diploma/training course,
which followed a due selection, clearly stipulated that on successful completion of
the diploma/training course the concerned persons would be eligible to be
appointed as Probationary Officers. Following the judgment of this Court in Ram
Singh (supra) the course has been terminated mid way.
4. The third category of applicants had commenced the similar training/diploma
course after the date of the judgment i.e. 17.03.2015 and the same has been
discontinued pursuant thereto.
5. While undoubtedly the decision laid down in Ram Singh (supra) has not been
made prospective, yet, in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the
Constitution it will be open for this Court to protect the vested rights that might
have accrued in an appropriate case.
6. Having considered the matter at length and after hearing the rival contentions
advanced at the Bar, we are of the view that though the judgment in Ram Singh
(supra) itself is not prospective and the declaration of law therein would have its
retrospective effect, nonetheless, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in us under
Article 142 of the Constitution, we are of the view that the rights vested in the
first category of applicants i.e. who had been appointed as Probationary Officers
in the State Bank of India would be entitled to have the benefit of such
appointments. It is Ordered accordingly.
7. The applicants in the second category would be entitled to complete their
diploma/training course and on successful completion thereof would be entitled
for consideration for their appointments.
8. However, the third category of applicants having commenced the
diploma/training course after the date of the judgment, we find it difficult to
afford any protection to the said group of the applicants before us.
9. All interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of in the above terms."
4. A reading of the order dated 12.4.2016 shows that the two
categories of persons who got appointment as OBC Jat caste were exempted
from having their appointments cancelled. The first category was of the
persons who got appointments prior to delivering of the judgment in the
case of Ram Singh (Supra) on 17.3.2015. The second category of
candidates who were not to lose their appointments were those persons who
had completed their training period and were formally to be granted their
letters of appointment. No other category of persons was protected as
regards their appointments except the aforesaid two categories. Petitioner
does not fall under the two exempted categories in terms of the clarification
order of the Supreme Court dated 12.4.2016 as the appointment of the
petitioner with respondent no. 2 was on 29.8.2016.
5. I may note that this Court may have entertained the present writ
petition if the present was a case of the petitioner having permanent
employment with the earlier employer namely Delhi Pharmaceutical
Science and Research University, Government of NCT of Delhi (DPSRU),
and which appointment petitioner had left for joining the respondent no. 2 in
terms of the appointment letter dated 29.8.2016, however, it is noted that
petitioner, who is present in person, states that the appointment of the
petitioner with DPSRU was only a contractual appointment and not a
permanent appointment, and hence the petitioner would have no lien on the
post with DPSRU.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
MARCH 15, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
