Delhi High Court
Vivek Kumar vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 28 March, 2017
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1751/2016
Date of decision: 28th March, 2017
VIVEK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ram Niwas Buri, Advocate.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate for the
DMRC.
Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Central Government Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Vivek Kumar, in this writ petition, impugns order dated 3rd December,
2015, whereby OA No. 4214/2015 filed by him has been dismissed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short).
2. The petitioner is a resident of Village Chainpura, Post Office-Ladusar,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan and belongs to the 'Jat' community.
3. The petitioner, as an Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate, had
applied for selection pursuant to Advertisement/Notification No.
DMRC/OM/HR/II/2014 issued by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,
for the post of Assistant Manager (S&T), to be filled through an All India
Competitive Examination. The selection process comprised of three stages;
written test (two papers), group discussion and personal interview followed
by medical examination. The petitioner on being declared successful in the
written test along with fifteen others was called for group
discussion/interview. However, in the select list issued vide notification
dated 3rd June, 2015, only five candidates were shortlisted for the post of
Assistant Manager (S&T). The petitioner did not figure in the said list.
4. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act,
2005 and then learnt that he had secured 67.34 marks, out of a grand total of
100 marks, which marks were higher than the cut-off marks of 63.17 for the
OBC category and 66.58 for unreserved category. However, the petitioner
was not selected as his OBC status was rejected relying upon the decision of
the Supreme Court in Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India, (2015) 4
SCC 697.
5. The petitioner had thereupon filed OA No.4214/2015, which, as
noticed above, has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 3 rd
December, 2015. The impugned order rejects the contention of the
petitioner that the decision in the case of Ram Singh (supra) quashing the
notification dated 04th March, 2014 had the effect of excluding Jats from
Bharatpur and Dholpur districts of Rajasthan from the Central List of OBCs
and did not exclude Jats from the Jhunjhunu district to which the petitioner
belonged. Reliance is placed on notification dated 27th October, 1999 to
urge that Jats from the Jhunjhunu district would continue to be included in
the Central OBC List, notwithstanding the quashing of the notification dated
4th March, 2014. It is highlighted that the subject matter of challenge in
Ram Singh (supra) was the validity of notification dated 4th March, 2014,
which had the effect of including Jats in the Central List of OBCs for the
State of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT
of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttrakhand and Bharatpur and Dholpur districts of
Rajasthan.
6. To examine the issue and contention, this Court had directed the
Standing Counsel for the Union of India to obtain instructions with regard to
the notification dated 27th October, 1999, which had included Jats in the
State of Rajasthan, except for Bharatpur and Dholpur districts, in the Central
OBC List and whether the decision in the case of Ram Singh (supra) had the
effect of striking down the said notification.
7. On 19th April, 2016, the Standing Counsel for the Union of India had
affirmed and submitted that in the Ram Singh's (supra) case, the Supreme
Court had examined validity and had struck down the notification dated 4th
March, 2014 and not the earlier notification dated 27th October, 1999 and
hence, the inclusion of Jats in the State of Rajasthan, except for Bharatpur
and Dholpur districts, in the Central List of OBCs, would continue and
remains valid. However, subsequently, on 9th January, 2017, the Central
Government Standing Counsel had stated that the earlier statement recorded
on 19th April, 2016 was incorrect and was not the stand of the Union of
India. In these circumstances, we had directed the Union of India to file an
affidavit, which has been filed stating, inter alia, that the decision in the case
of Ram Singh (supra) had struck down the notification dated 4th March,
2014 and not the earlier notification dated 27th October, 1999 as the validity
of the latter was not in question and was not challenged before the Supreme
Court. Thus, the Jats in the State of Rajasthan, except for Bharatpur and
Dholpur districts, continue to remain in the Central List of the OBCs.
8. Counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India, have referred to the
decision in the case of Ram Singh (supra). In particular, our attention was
drawn to paragraph 2, which states that the National Commission for
Backward Classes had studied the claims and had submitted a report dated
28th November, 1997, recommending inclusion of Jats of Rajasthan, except
for Bharatpur and Dholpur districts, in the Central OBC List. Thereafter,
notification dated 27th October, 1999 was issued. It appears that various
States between 3rd November, 1999 and 24th January, 2013 had issued
notifications including Jats in their State, in the State OBC Lists. We are not
concerned with the said lists in the present case. What was subject matter of
challenge before the Supreme Court in Ram Singh (supra) was the
notification dated 4th March, 2014, which had included Jats in the Central
List of OBCs for the States of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttrakhand and Bharatpur
and Dholpur districts of Rajasthan. As noticed above, Bharatpur and
Dholpur districts of Rajasthan had been excluded by the earlier notification
dated 27th October, 1999. The Supreme Court's judgment refers to the
report of the National Commission for Backward Classes relating to Jats in
these States and Bharatpur and Dholpur districts in the State of Rajasthan,
which was not accepted by the Central Government, resulting in issue of
notification dated 4th March, 2014. Noticeably, there is an earlier report of
the National Commission for Backward Classes dated 28th November, 1997,
which had recommended inclusion of Jats of Rajasthan, except Bharatpur
and Dholpur districts, in the Central OBC List. Thus, the notification dated
27th October, 1999 was never under challenge or question as the said
notification was based upon the report dated 28th November, 1997 of the
National Commission for Backward Classes.
9. Resultantly, we would allow the present writ petition and set aside the
impugned order dated 3rd December, 2015. OA No. 4214/2015 would be
treated as allowed with a direction to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
to process the case of the petitioner in accordance with law for selection and
appointment to the said post. The aforesaid exercise would be completed
within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is
received. The petitioner, if and on being appointed, would not be entitled to
backwages, but while fixing his seniority and pay, he would be given benefit
of the date when his junior was appointed to the post of Assistant Manager
(S&T) under the advertisement in question. The writ petition is disposed of,
in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
MARCH 28, 2017
NA
