Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission vs Smt Bala on 28 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 17740/2024
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Bharathi Raju, SPC (UoI).
versus
SMT BALA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr.
Ramesh Babu, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 75493/2024 & CM APPL. 75494/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 17740/2024 & CM APPL. 75492/2024 (Stay)
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,
'Tribunal') in Original Application No. 3316/2016 titled Smt. Bala v.
Staff Selection Commission (Head Quarter) ('O.A.'), allowing the
said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following direction:
" 12. Accordingly, we allow the present OA
quashing the action of the respondents in
cancelling the candidature of the applicant
and direct them to revive her candidature and
thereafter, take further consequential action of
giving her offer of appointment subject to her
meeting all other qualifications and eligibility
criteria. While determining the eligibility and
qualification of the applicants, it is made clear
that it will be done for all other parameters
except her OBC status which has been
established by way of this Order.
13. In the event of the applicant having
qualified and meeting other eligibility criteria,
necessary offer of appointment to the post of
MTS will be given to her with effect from the
date last of the candidates selected pursuant to
the subject selection examination was
appointed.
14. The applicant, if appointed, shall be
entitled to consequential benefits, albeit on
notional basis from the date of appointment
and on actual basis from the date she assumes
charge of her position.
15. The directions contained herein shall be
complied with within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this Order.
There shall be no order as to costs."
3. As a brief background of the facts in which the present petition
arises, the petitioner had issued an Advertisement for recruitment to
the post of Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff in different States
and Union Territories-2013 on 10.11.2012. The respondent qualified
in the Written Examination and was called to appear for the Document
Verification on 16.12.2013. Her candidature, however, was rejected
by the petitioner by stating that the OBC certificate furnished by the
respondent was not in the prescribed format.
4. The same contention was raised as a defence by the petitioner
before the learned Tribunal, which was rejected by the learned
Tribunal observing by as under:
" 9· The communication impugned is an
information obtained under RTI. Therefore we
would not like to go into the issue of its being
cryptic and non-speaking. However, we note
that the sole reason it gives is that the
certificate is not in the "prescribed format"
and nothing else.
10. There is no dispute with respect to the
caste of the applicant or whether that caste
belongs to OBC category or not. Therefore, we
hold that the caste the applicant belongs to
does fall in the OBC category. The status of
the applicant not belonging to creamy layer
has also not been questioned. The only
reservation expressed by the respondents is
that it lacks clarity as to how this status has
been determined.
11. The certificate has been issued by the
Tehsildar who is an authority of the state and
certainly not amenable to our jurisdiction nor
are we entitled to question the veracity of the
certificates issued by a public authority duly
empowered to issue the same. Rejecting it
merely on account of it not adhering to a
prescribed format despite the certificate
unambiguously disclosing the status of the
applicant both in terms of caste and non
creamy layer, in our opinion is a hyper
technical approach. While adhering to the
rigid word of law, it blatantly defies the spirit
of justice."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing reference to
Clause 5 of the Recruitment Notice, submits that the candidates were
to produce the required caste certificates "in the prescribed format" in
support of their claim at the time of the application. She submits that
the format was prescribed in the form of Annexure-VII to the
Recruitment Notice. She further submits that in the present case, the
Caste Certificate dated 28.01.2013 produced by the respondent along
with her application, was not in the prescribed format and, therefore,
the candidature of the respondent was rightly rejected. In support of
her submissions, she places reliance on the judgement of the Supreme
Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Probir Ghosh & Ors., (2022) 12
SCC 250.
6. She further submits that the caste certificate that had been
produced by the respondent along with her application was certifying
the caste of the respondent on the basis of the caste of her husband,
and the same is not permissible. In support she places reliance on the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Sunita Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 493.
7. She submits that by way of an additional affidavit, the
respondent had placed before the learned Tribunal a caste certificate
dated 26.08.2002 issued by the Tehsildar, District Alwar, Rajasthan,
which was issued by the concerned authority much before the date of
the Recruitment Notice and, therefore, could not have been considered
as a valid certificate in the recruitment process of 2013, which
required the certificate to be issued not beyond three years prior to the
date of the recruitment process. In support, she places reliance on the
judgement of the Supreme Court in T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu & Anr.,
(2008) 9 SCC 403.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the caste certificate produced by the respondent along
with her application, had been issued in the format prescribed by the
State of Haryana. He further submits that the respondent cannot be
denied opportunity of public employment only because different State
Governments prescribe different formats of the caste certificate, which
may not match with the format that has been prescribed by the
petitioner in a given recruitment process. He submits that there was no
dispute raised before the learned Tribunal to the fact that the
respondent belongs to the OBC category in accordance with the caste
of her father. He submits that there was also no dispute to the fact that
the respondent belongs to a non-creamy layer as the same was also
certified in the caste certificate produced before the learned Tribunal.
He submits that, therefore, the respondent could not have been denied
employment only because the certificate produced by her was not in
the prescribed format. In support, he places reliance on the judgement
of this Court in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v.
Sheeba, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1645; Neeraj Kumar Prasad v. Union
of India & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2139 and of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in Divya Kalia v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2025
SCC OnLine P&H 1790.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
10. Admittedly, the certificate produced by the respondent at the
time of her application was not in the prescribed format. However, it
did certify that she belongs to 'Ahir' Community, which is recognised
as an Other Backward Class by the Government of India. This was
also admitted by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal.
11. Merely because, in the Caste Certificate, the respondent was
described as being the wife of Sh. Inder Jeet rather than as the
daughter of Sh. Hardwari Lal, does not lead to an inference that her
caste certificate was based on the caste of her husband. In fact, before
the learned Tribunal, there was no dispute raised by the petitioner to
the fact that the respondent belongs to an Other Backward Class
notified by the Govt. of India. The caste certificate also certifies that
the respondent did not belong to the creamy layer, which also was not
disputed.
12. The only dispute raised by the petitioner was that the caste
certificate was not in the prescribed form. We are of the opinion that it
is the substance and not the form that determines the eligibility of the
candidate for a post, especially in matters of public employment. The
format in which such certificates are issued by various State
Governments is not in the hands of the applicants. They cannot be
penalised or denied public employment merely because the certificate
issued by the State Government is not in the format that has been
prescribed by the recruiting agency. As long as the certificate certifies
the substance of the requirements prescribed, the opportunity of
recruitment should not be denied by the State on mere technicalities of
format.
13. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our
attention to the Office Memorandum bearing no. 36011/1/2012-
Estt.(Res.) dated 08.10.2015, and Circular bearing no. 36011/1/2012-
Estt.(Res.) dated 14.03.2016, by which the Department of Personnel &
Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Govt.
of India has instructed the recruiting agencies not to reject the
candidature of persons belonging to the reserved communities only on
the ground that such candidate is unable to produce a certificate of any
prescribed authorities in the prescribed format.
14. We quote form the Circular dated 14.03.2016, as under:
" 2. Owing to difficulties faced by candidates,
belonging to these reserved communities in
various states in securing employment due to
delays in obtaining caste certificates, this
Department, vide an Office Memorandum of
even number dated 08.10.2015, has re-iterated
the instructions on providing provisional
appointment to such reserved category
candidates who are unable to obtain an
appropriate caste certificate in time. It has
been reiterated therein that where a candidate
belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribe or Other Backward Class is unable to
produce a certificate from any of the
prescribed authorities, he/she may be
appointed provisionally on the basis of
whatever prima-facie proof he/she is able to
produce in support of his/her claim, subject to
his/her furnishing the prescribed certificate
within a reasonable time. If there is genuine
difficulty in his/her obtaining a certificate, the
appointing authority should itself verify
his/her claim through the District Magistrate
concerned. A copy of the OM is enclosed for
reference and perusal
3. In order to ensure that the candidates
belonging to reserved categories do not face
unnecessary problems in obtaining caste
certificates, it is requested that instructions
issued to the concerned authorities in the light
of the aforementioned letter dated 20.03.2007
may be reiterated for information/compliance
of all concerned."
15. This Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Sheeba
(supra) had also refused to entertain a similar challenge, by observing
as under:
" 8. From a perusal of the aforesaid findings
of the learned Tribunal, we find that the
respondent's original application has been
allowed only after taking into account the
petitioner's specific admission that the Teli
community to which the respondent belongs
was, since 1995 itself, recognized as an OBC
for the purposes of appointment under the
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In the light of this
categoric admission made by the petitioner, it
is evident that from the certificate furnished by
the respondent along with her application it
was clear that she belonged to a community
which was recognized as OBC by the Govt. of
NCT of Delhi. In our considered view, from
the certificate dated 12.07.2011 furnished by
the respondent along with her application,
once it emerged that she belonged to the Teli
community, the petitioner could not reject her
candidature.
9. In the light of the aforesaid, we find
absolutely no reason to interfere with the
impugned order. The learned Tribunal, in our
considered view, was justified in holding that
all that the respondent was obliged to show as
on the cut-off date was that she was an OBC
category candidate recognized for
appointment under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and belonged to the non-creamy layer. Merely
because the Deputy Commissioner of the
petitioner while issuing the certificate in
favour of the respondent stated therein that the
certificate was being issued for the purpose of
employment under the Government of India
would not change the fact that she belonged to
the Teli community, which as per the own case
of the petitioner was recognized as an OBC
community for employment under the list
maintained by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi."
16. In Neeraj Kumar Prasad (supra), again, this Court rejected an
argument similar to the one raised by the petitioner herein, by
observing as under:
"17. In the facts and circumstances, certainly
the petitioner cannot be denied employment at
this stage on the specious ground that the
certificate was not in the prescribed format or
the certificates submitted belatedly.
18.In the given facts and circumstances, we
feel that grave and unwarranted injustice has
been done to the petitioner. He has been made
to run from pillar to post without any fault on
his part despite the admitted factual position
especially with regard to the caste of his father
and the fact that his father was recruited under
the Other Backward category and continues to
be so even on date. The petitioner's certificates
were also unfairly doubted. The respondents
also unreasonably sat over the matter for
several days."
17. In Divya Kalia (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court also
held that prominence has to be given to the substance rather than the
format, by observing as under:
"9. It is trite law that a candidate, seeking
public employment, must possess the requisite
mandatory qualification(s) as on the
prescribed cut-off-date. The Three Judge
Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and
Bedanga Talukdar (supra) unequivocally
enunciates that the eligibility of a candidate is
required to be adjudged with scrupulous
reference to the cut-off date and that date
alone. A person, who acquires the requisite
prescribed qualification, subsequent to such a
prescribed cut-off date, renders himself
ineligible and cannot be shown any relaxation
unless the extant rules so provide. As a pivotal
imperative pre-requisite thereof, a candidate is
pertinently required to possess the mandatory
qualification(s), as sought for by the
concerned selecting/examining agency, on the
cut-off-date; whereas, acquiring them
subsequently would not render such a
candidate eligible & failure therein would
incur in consequential penal effect(s).
The general rule, thus, is that a candidate must
deposit all requisite certificate(s) etc. at the
time of submitting his application form and he
ought not to be permitted to rectify such
certificate(s). However, possession of a
qualification is starkly distinct from the proof
thereof. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Charles K Skaria (supra) has held that what is
essential is the possession of a qualification
before the concerned date and mode of proof
thereof, is ancillary. Following this dicta; the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dolly
Chhanda (supra), Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra)
and Karan Singh Yadav (supra) has carved
out exception(s) when it relates to submission
of a certificate/testimonial with a technical
defect/irregularity, which was beyond the
reasonable control of such candidate(s). It is
an unshaken canon of our jurisprudence that
when substantial and technical considerations
are pitted against each other, the cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
Procedural and technical hurdles ought not to
be allowed to stand in the way of substantial
justice. It must be grasped that the concept of
substantial justice is respected not on account
of its power to legalize an otherwise injustice
configured so endowed with a sceptre nay
SENGOL on technical grounds; but because it
is for striking out and is expected to do so. If
the procedural violation does not cause
prejudice to anyone else, the concept of
substantial justice requires that the
Courts/authorities must lean towards
effectuating justice rather than relying upon
procedural and technical violations. When
substantial & procedural considerations stand
in opposition, the former must invariably
prevail, for justice is not a mere mechanical
exercise but a tangible pursuit of truth &
fairness. The dicta of these judgments,
essentially, grants a latitude to the reserved
category aspirants, treating the submission of
irregular/technically defective certificate(s)
being essentially procedural lapse(s) which
may be condoned, in view of the facts involved.
The common denominator, which runs through
these decisions is that, even when correct
requisite certificate(s) were allowed to be
submitted belatedly, such candidate did
actually possess such qualification on the cut-
off-date. In other words, the Apex Court has
enunciated that such
certificate(s)/testimonial(s) were proof of an
attribute which the candidate already
possessed of and such attribute was not
attained after the cut-off-date.
Judicial notice can well be taken by this Court
that, such reservation certificate(s) are, more
often than not, issued at the end of the
concerned authority(s) and a candidate does
not have any say nay authoritative say in
issuance thereof. In actual life, it is often
exasperatingly cumbersome for a candidate to
obtain requisite certificate nay one issued in
the exact prescribed form from the concerned
authority. A technical irregularity/defect in
such certificate(s) issued by the concerned
competent authority is, thus, beyond the
control of an aspirant. Actual excellence or
even basic eligibility, thus, cannot be
permitted to be obliterated by the choice of an
orthodox interpretation of law and procedure.
Equity ought to overpower technicality where
the justice so demands. In the realm of writ
jurisdiction, courts are duty bound to uphold
the paramount cause of substantial justice,
ensuring that the dispensation of justice is not
thwarted by mere technicalities. While
procedural considerations serve as necessary
safeguards to ensure orderly adjudication,
they must never be exalted to the extent that
they eclipse the fundamental tenets of fairness,
equity and justice or even moribund the cause
of justice. The Court, as a sentinel of justice,
must wield its discretionary power to prevent
miscarriage of justice arising from rigid
adherence to procedural formalities. Equity,
being the soul of justice demands that the
courts adopt a liberal and pragmatic
approach, ensuring that the form does not
triumph over the substance. A constitutional
court, vested with extra-ordinary jurisdiction,
must, therefore, eschew hyper-technical
reasoning and focus on the broader ends of
justice, for the law must ever remain a
handmaiden to justice & not an instrument of
oppression or procedural entanglement.
10. A conundrum faced by the
selecting/examining agency in such a scenario,
seeks attention, namely; granting latitude to
the candidate(s) for submission of
correct/technical error free certificate(s) after
the last date of depositing of application form
having passed, poses a threat of uncertainty,
looming large in the selection/examination
process, as also may cause delay in
culmination thereof.
A candidate, while making an application and
submitting documents in support thereof,
indubitably ought to be diligent and any laxity
ought not to be condoned as has been in the
case of Divya (supra).
Document(s)/certificate(s) required to be
submitted have to be scrupulously checked by
the candidate concerned before submission
thereof. A candidate cannot be afforded
latitude for omission(s) on his part as the
selecting/examining agency has to proceed on
the basis of application and documents
submitted by the candidate. In case an error
has occurred on account of circumstances
beyond the control of the applicant, namely,
an incorrect/technically defective certificate(s)
received by the candidate from the competent
authority, having been presented by the
candidate, in the back drop of such a
candidate actually possessing the requisite
qualification, some latitude may be extendable
to such a candidate. It is indubitable that it is
for the candidate to show good cause, with
certitude, for grant of such a latitude. Also,
corrective or remedial steps ought to be
undertaken at the end of the concerned
candidate, at the earliest feasible date, since
the time lapse may, by itself proscribe any
such latitude as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Divya (supra)
Ergo; the conundrum is set at naught; viz, a
candidate seeking latitude for submission of an
incorrect/defective certificate alongwith the
application form is required to show tangible
cause or accentuating circumstances, at the
earliest opportunity lest the timeline itself may
non-suit such candidate. No exhaustive set of
such circumstances/cause(s) can possibly be
laid down however alluring this aspect may
be. It is neither fathomable nor desirable to
lay down any straight jacket formula in this
regard. Any attempt in this case would be, to
say the least, quixotic endeavour.
Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or
different fact, may make a sea of difference
between conclusions in two cases. Such
exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent
upon the factual matrix of a particular lis,
since every case has its own peculiar factual
conspectus.
xxxxx
12. Before parting with this order, another
aspect of the lis in hand craves attention. In
discharging its role as a litigant, the State (as
also its instrumentalities) must adopt a
balanced and judicious approach, resisting the
temptation to oppose the claims
indiscriminately. The State must exercise due
diligence in distinguishing between a baseless
and a legitimate claim. While it is justified in
defending itself against spurious claims, this
duty must be discharged with a sense of
responsibility. The Constitutional framework
envisions the State as a Welfare State, which is
inherently obligated to act in the best interest
of its citizens. In litigation involving the State
and its citizens, this welfare-oriented ethos
must guide the State's conduct. Unlike a
private litigant, whose sole objective is often to
secure a favourable judgment, the State bears
a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is
served, consistent with the principles of
fairness and equity.
The Courts across the legal system -- this
Court being not an exception -- are choked
with litigation. Frivolous and groundless
dispute(s) constitute a serious menace to the
administration of justice. They consume time
and clog the overburdened infrastructure.
Productive resources, which should be
deployed in the handling of genuine causes,
are dissipated in pursuing worthless cause(s).
In our jurisprudential eco-system, the State is
the largest litigant today and the huge
expenditure involved makes a big draft on the
public exchequer. The present case is an
unsoothing illustration of, how litigations are
pursued on behalf of the State (HPSC, to be
more precise, in the case in hand), in a totally
mechanical and indifferent fashion. The
proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence,
reflective of an apathetic approach that
undermines the principles of responsible
governance & judicial propriety. Such conduct
reflects an absence of serious application of
mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation
that burdens the judicial system. This tendency
can be curbed only if the Courts across the
system adopt an institutional approach which
penalizes such comportment. The imposition of
costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to
be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous
conduct. Ergo, this Court deems it appropriate
to saddle HPSC with costs, which indubitably
ought to be veritable and real time in nature."
18. In Probir Ghosh (supra), the Supreme Court also highlighted
that the power to issue certificates vests with the officers of the State
Government and there is no uniformity in this regard. The Supreme
Court held that, therefore, some leverage has to be given in these
issues. However, in the facts of that case the Court found that the
certificate on which reliance was being placed may not have been
placed along with the application and, therefore, denied relief. We
quote from the judgement as under:
"49. It is true that the power to issue caste
certificates vests with the officers of the State
Government and that there is no uniformity in
this regard. Therefore, some leverage has to
be given."
19. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the additional caste certificate dated 26.08.2002 , which was produced
by the respondent by the way of an additional affidavit before the
learned Tribunal, could not have been relied upon by the learned
Tribunal in the Impugned Order, is concerned, we may only state that
the Impugned Order does not reflect that it was passed in favour of the
respondent based on that certificate. The learned Tribunal has, in fact,
based its order on the certificate which was produced by the
respondent at the time of her application. Therefore, the judgement in
T. Jayakumar (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner.
20. Similarly, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
it is the caste of the father of the respondent that would determine her
OBC status, is also not disputed. The respondent was not claiming her
OBC status on the basis of the caste of her husband but rather, on the
basis of caste of her father alone. In fact, as noted hereinabove, there
was no dispute on this aspect raised by the petitioner before the
learned Tribunal.
21. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition.
22. The same, along with the pending application, is accordingly
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 28, 2025/Pr/Kz/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
