1. Both these writ petitions arise out of judgments passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal1, on 8 December 2023 in OA
1538/20222 and on 10 October 2023 in OA 472/20193. The issue in
controversy in both these cases being similar, they were heard
together. This judgment disposes of both the writ petitions.
WP (C) 10587/2024 [GNCTD and Anr. v Jyoti]
2. The respondent Jyoti belongs to the Nai community, which,
according to the recitals in the OA4 filed by her before the Tribunal, is
recognised as an OBC5 by Resolutions dated 24 May 1995, 19 June
2003 and 17 February 2014 issued by the GNCTD6. It figures at serial
No. 43 of the list of castes notified as OBCs by the GNCTD.
3. On 2 January 2013 and 12 July 2017, the Deputy
Commissioner7 (South West District) Delhi and the District
Magistrate8, Dwarka, South West District, Delhi issued certificates to
Jyoti, certifying that she belonged to an OBC. These certificates read
thus:
6. No.FB(6)/2000-01/DSCST/SC/OBC/11677 dated
5/2/2004.
This certificate is issued on the basis of OBC Certificate issued to
Shri / Smt/Kumari DHARAMVIR Father of Sh/Smt/Kumari
JYOTI resident of DISTT. ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH, who
belongs to NAI caste which is recognised as Other Backward Class
in the State / U.T. U.P Issued by the TEHSILDAR vide their No.
12209203793 dated 02/12/2009.
It is also certified that he/she does not belong to the
persons/sections (Creamy layer) mentioned in column 3 of the
Schedule to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and
Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 8/9/1993,O.M.
No.36033/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated 9/3/2004 and 14/10/2008.
Sd/-
Dated: 2/1/2013 (SATISH KUMAR RAWAT )
Executive Magistrate, PALAM"
Certificate dated 12 July 2017, issued by the District Magistrate
Dwarka, South West District, Delhi
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DWARKA : SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
For applying for appointment to Posts under the Government of
India
This is to certify that JYOTI D/o DHARAM VIR R/o RZ-B-59
BINDAPUR EXTN. DELHI 110059 INDIA belongs to the NAI
community which is recognised as Other Backward. Class under
the Government of India, Ministry on Social Justice and
Empowerment's Resolution No. 12011/44/96/BCC, 12011/36/99-
BCC(C), 12011/68/93-BCC(C), 12011/96/94-BCC Dated
06/12/1996, 04/04/2000, 10/09/1993, 09/03/1996.
JYOTI and her family ordinarily resides at RZ-B-59 BINDAPUR
EXTN. DELHI 110059 INDIA
This certificate is issued on the basis of OBC certificate issued to
JYOTI SELF of JYOTI R/o B-59, BINDAPUR EXTN. UTTAM
NAGAR, NEW DELHI belongs to NAl community of DELHI
State vide Certificate No. 9641104432 dated 02/01/2013 issued by
the OFFICE OF THE DC SOUTH WEST DELHI
This is also to certify that she does not belong to the
person/sections (Creamy layer) mentioned in column 3 of the
Schedule to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel &
Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt(SCT). 36033/3/2004-
Estt(Res), 36033/1/2013-Estt (Res) dated 8/9/1993 9/03/2004 &
14/10/2008 and 27/5/2013 respectively.
Sd/-
Satish Kumar Rawat,
Tehsildar"
OBC (Outside) candidates will be treated as Unreserved
candidate and they must apply under UR category. The
OBC candidates must be in possession of non-Creamy layer
9 "the Vacancy Notice", hereinafter
10 "DSSSB" hereinafter
certificate, along with his/her caste certificate.
(iv) Only following two types of certificates will be
accepted as valid certificates for grant of benefit of
reservation to OBCs:-
(A) OBC certificate (Delhi) issued by the
Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi, on the
basis of a old certificate issued to any member of
individual's family from GNCT of Delhi.
(B) OBC certificate issued by a competent
authority outside Delhi to a person belonging to a
community duly notified as OBC by GNCT of
Delhi. This certificate should have mandatorily been
issued on the basis of OBC certificate issued by
Govt. of NCT of Delhi to a family member of the
concerned person who had been residing in Delhi
before 08/09/1993."
5. The respondent applied, in response to the aforesaid Vacancy
Notice, as an OBC candidate. She furnished, with her application, the
OBC certificate dated 2 January 2013 (supra) issued by the DC (South
West District) Delhi.
6. Given the volume of applications received in response to the
advertisement, the DSSSB contends that, at the stage of initial
screening of applications, the validity of the OBC certificates and
other documents produced by the candidates is not examined in detail.
It is only in respect of the candidates who qualify on merit that
examination of their certificates and other documents is undertaken.
We may note that this is a standard procedure adopted in most such
examinations and that, given the number of applications which are
received, the procedure is wholesome and cannot be faulted. Nor was
any grievance raised in this regard by the respondent in neither of
these petitions.
7. The respondent cleared Tier I and Tier II of the selection
process following the Vacancy Notice, as per the results which were
announced on 23 January 2020 and 20 April 2021 respectively. The
notice dated 20 April 2021, which announced the result of candidates
who had cleared Tier II, also required the candidates to fill up and
upload the requisite documents in e-dossier format. The respondent
did so, within the time stipulated in that regard.
8. The list of candidates provisionally selected were announced by
three result notices dated 17 June 2021, 23 February 2022 and 29
April 2022. 101 seats were reserved for OBC. The respondent had
scored 98.04, which was above the cut-off mark of 74.24, announced
for OBCs as per the notice dated 23 January 2020, whereby the Tier I
results were declared.
9. By the aforesaid result notices dated 17 June 2021, 23 February
2022 and 29 April 2022, 85, 12 and 5 OBC candidates were selected.
The respondent scored less than the last OBC candidate selected by
the result notice dated 17 June 2021 and the supplementary result
notice dated 23 February 2022. She, however, scored more than the
last OBC candidate selected by the supplementary result notice dated
29 April 2022. Nonetheless, her name did not figure in the list of
selected candidates in any of the notices.
10. The supplementary result notice dated 29 April 2022 noted that
her candidature had been rejected as her OBC certificate dated 2
January 2013, furnished by her with her application, certifying that the
Nai community, to which she belonged, was recognised as an OBC in
the State of UP, and not in Delhi. As such, the OBC certificate was
not in terms of the requirements in that regard as contained in the
Vacancy Notice, as a result of which, her candidature could not be
considered.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Tribunal by
way of OA 1538/2022. She pointed out that she had, to her credit, not
one, but two OBC certificates issued by the GNCTD. Emphasis was
laid on the OBC certificate dated 2 January 2013, to submit that it
clearly certified that the respondent was an OBC. The certificate
having been issued by the Revenue Authorities in the GNCTD, it was
submitted that the DSSSB erred in rejecting her candidature.
12. The DSSSB filed a counter affidavit by way of response to the
OA, in which it was submitted that the chance of the respondent being
included in the list of successful candidates only arose at the time of
the third supplementary result, as she had scored less than the last
successful OBC candidate in the first two results as notified. Her
candidature could not be treated as valid, as the OBC certificate dated
2 January 2013, submitted by her with her application, was issued on
the basis of an OBC certificate issued to her father by the authorities
in the State of UP, certifying that the Nai community was an OBC in
UP. On the basis of the said certificate, therefore, Jyoti could not
claim to be an OBC for the purposes of securing appointment to posts
under the GNCTD. The certificate could be of use only in the State of
UP. Accordingly, the counter affidavit prayed that the OA be
dismissed.
16. Following the decisions in Rishabh Malik and Hemant Kumar,
the Tribunal has, by the impugned judgment quashed the Result
Notice dated 29 April 2022 and has directed that the respondent be
granted appointment pursuant to the Vacancy Notice, and granted
consequential benefits with effect from the date her immediate junior
in merit was granted appointment. The benefits would be notional till
11 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8303
12 (2019) 10 SCC 120
13 Judgment dated 24 March 2023 in OA 2046/2019
the date Jyoti assumes the charge of the post and actual thereafter.
17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, DSSSB has approached
this Court by means of the present writ petition.
18. We have heard Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, learned counsel for the
respondent at length.
19. Written submissions have also been filed by learned counsel.
20. The DSSSB has, before this Court, sought to place reliance on
the stipulation in the Advertisement 02/2018 to the effect that
reservation for SC/ST/OBC candidates would be granted as per the
policy of the GNCTD and that only OBC (Delhi) candidates would be
entitled to the benefit of reservation. Para 2(ix) of the petition asserts
thus:
2000/DS/CST/SCP/OBC/ 2855 dated 31.05.2000 and F.8(6)/2000-
01/DSCST/CS/ OBC/11677 dated 05.07.2004. As such, she did not
hold valid OBC certificate to validate her candidature for the post
code 21/18. She was also not eligible under UR category. Copies of
the above notifications are annexed herewith as Annexure-D
(Colly)."
21. The Notifications dated 20 January 1995, 31 May 2000 and 5
February 2004, issued by the GNCTD, to which reference is made in
the afore-extracted paragraph from the writ petition, read thus:
By order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi
F. Pahuna, Secy."
"DIRECTORATE FOR THE WELFARE OF SC/ST
NOTIFICATION
Delhi. the 31st May, 2000
No.F.8/11/99-2000/DSCST/SCP/OBC/2855 - The
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide
Department of Welfare of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes
Notification No.F.28(93)/91-92/SCST/P&S/109, dated 20th April
1993 had constituted a Commission known as "Commission for
Other Backward Classes" to examine requests for inclusion of any
class of citizens as a backward class in the list and hear complaints
of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in such
lists.
On the recommendations of the abovesaid Commission, 53
Castes/Communities were notified for inclusion in the list of Other
Backward Classes for Delhi vide Notification No. P 28(93)/91-
92/SCST/P&S/4384, dated 20-1-95.
The abovesaid Commission has submitted its IInd report
wherein a recommendation for inclusion of "Jat" Caste/Community
in the OBC list for Delhi has been made. This recommendation has
been accepted by the Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi and after the approval of Govt. of India, Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment conveyed vide letter No.12011/49/99-
BCC(Con.) dated 24th April 2000, the Lt. Governor of National
Capital Territory of Delhi, hereby notifies to include the "Jat"
Caste / Community in the State list of Other Backward Classes of
National Capital Territory of Delhi, as under :
The abovesaid inclusion shall come into effect from the date of
issue of this notification.
By order and in the name of the Lt.
Governor of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi
H.A. ARFI, Secy."
"DEPARTMENT FOR THE WELFARE OF
SC/ST/OBC/MINORITIES
Delhi, the 5th February 2004
No. F 8(6)/2000-01/DSCST/SCP/OBC/11677 - Whereas
the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, vide
Department of Welfare of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes
Notification No.F.28(93)/91-92/SCST/P&S/109, dated 20th April
1993, had constituted a commission known as 'Commission for
other Backward Classes' to examine requests for inclusion of any
class of citizens as a backward class in the list and hear complaints
of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in such
lists;
And whereas on the recommendations of the abovesaid
Commission, 53 Castes/communities were notified for inclusion in
the list of Other Backward Classes for Delhi vide Notification
No.F. 28(93)/91-92/SCST/P&S/4384 dated the 20th January 1995
and whereas the "Jat" Caste / community was further included in
the list of Other Backward Classes for Delhi vide
NotificationNo.F.8/11/99-2000/DSCST/SCP/OBC/2855, dated the
31st May, 2000 on the basis of the recommendation made by the
said Commission for Other Backward Classes in its Second
Report;
And whereas the abovesaid Commission has submitted its
Third and Fourth reports recommending certain castes /
communities for inclusion in the OBC list for Delhi and whereas
the recommendations of the Commission were accepted by the
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in toto;
Now, therefore, with the approval of the Government of
India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment conveyed vide
then letter No.12011/5/2002-BCC dated the 17th October, 2003, the
Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi hereby notified
to include the following Castes / Communities in the State list of
Other Backward Classes of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
namely:
The abovesaid inclusion shall come into effect from the date of
issue of this notification.
By order and in the name of the Lt.
Governor of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi
C.TARGAY, Secy."
22. The writ petition also seeks to distinguish the decision in
Rishabh Malik on the ground that, apart from the OBC
(Migrant/Outsider) certificate tendered by the candidate Rishabh
Malik in that case, he was also in possession of an OBC (Delhi)
certificate dated 23 March 2015, on the basis of which he was
ultimately selected. As against this, it is submitted that the respondent
has no such certificate with her. The certificate dated 2 January 2013
has been issued on the basis of an earlier OBC certificate issued to her
father by the State of UP, certifying that the Nai community was an
OBC in the State of UP and the certificate dated 12 July 2017 applies
only to appointment for posts under the Government of India, as is
specifically stated in the Certificate itself. Besides, the OBC certificate
dated 2 January 2013 does not conform to the stipulations envisaged
in Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice and is not therefore a valid OBC
certificate for the purposes of the advertisement. Ground C in the writ
petition sets out the following format, in which as per Notification
dated 20 January 1995 of the GNCTD, the OBC certificates are
required to be issued:
Tehsildar / Executive Magistrate
(Sub-Division)
Date"
23. Moreover, it is submitted that the case is covered by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar.
24. These contentions have been reiterated by Ms. Ahlawat during
arguments before the Bench. She has also filed written submissions
which placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Pradeep Kumar, Bir Singh v Delhi Jal Board14, MCD v Veena15,
GNCTD v Ravindra Singh16 as well as of this Court in Deepak
Kumar v District & Sessions Judge, Delhi17, and Pooja Rohilla v
GNCD18.
25. Responding to the submissions of Ms. Ahlawat, Mr. Dahiya,
learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in the light of the
certificates dated 2 January 2013 and 12 July 2017 issued to Jyoti, no
fault could be found with the judgment of the Tribunal. He submits
that the issue is covered by the decisions of this Court in DSSSB v
Tanisha Ansari19 and GNCTD v Anjana20.
Analysis
26. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and applied
ourselves to the facts and rival contentions.
14 (2018) 10 SCC 312
15 (2001) 6 SCC 571
16 SLP(C) No.12474-75/2019, decided on 12 September 2022
17 (2012) 132 DRJ 169 (FB)
18 Order dated 28 April 2023 passed in WP(C) 5493/2023
19 2024 SCC OnLine Del 243
20 Judgment dated 10 May 2022 passed in WP(C) 9856/2019
27. The controversy, on facts and in law, appears to be fully
covered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, authored by one of us
(C. Hari Shankar, J.), in Government of NCT of Delhi v Priyanka21.
28. On a comparison of the OBC Certificate dated 2 January 2013
furnished by the respondent, vis-à-vis the stipulations in that regard as
contained in Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice, we find, as Mrs.
Ahlawat correctly points out, that the OBC certificate dated 2 January
2013 does not conform to the requirements envisaged in Clause 5 of
the Vacancy Notice, and the OBC certificate dated 12 July 2017 is
expressly issued only "for applying for appointment to posts under the
Government of India". Inasmuch as the posts advertised by the
Vacancy Notice are not posts under the Government of India but
under the GNCTD, the OBC certificate dated 12 July 2017 can be of
no avail to the respondent.
29. Insofar as the OBC certificate dated 2 January 2013 is
concerned, it clearly states that it has been issued on the basis of an
OBC certificate dated 2 December 2009 issued to Dharam Vir, the
father of Jyoti by the Tehsildar in the State of UP. Clause 5 of the
Vacancy Notice specifically requires the OBC certificate, if issued by
the Revenue Department of the GNCTD, to be based on an old
certificate issued to any member of the candidate's family from the
GNCTD. As the OBC certificate dated 2 January 2013, though issued
to the respondent by the Revenue Authority in the GNCTD, has not
been issued on the basis of an OBC certificate issued to any member
of her family by the GNCTD, but on the basis of an OBC certificate
21 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9034
Signing Date:01.07.2025
13:29:56
issued to her father by the Revenue Authority in the State of UP, the
OBC certificate does not conform to Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice.
30. It cannot, therefore, be said that Jyoti was in possession of an
OBC certificate which conforms to Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice, as
would entitle her to the benefit of her OBC status in the matter of
recruitment following the said Vacancy Notice.
31. This Court was faced with an identical situation in Priyanka.
Paras 3 to 30 of the said decision may be reproduced thus:
"3. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, by
advertisement dated 5 July 2018, invited applications for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist in the DoHFW. The
advertisement also envisaged reservation for OBC candidates.
Clause 5 of the advertisement provided thus:
"5(iv) Only following two types of certificates will be
accepted as valid certificates for grant of benefit of
reservation to OBCs:
(A) OBC certificate (Delhi) issued by the
Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi, on the
basis of an old certificate issued to any member of
individual's family from GNCT of Delhi.
(B) OBC certificate issued by a competent
authority outside Delhi to a person belonging to a
community duly notified as OBC by GNCT of
Delhi. This certificate should have mandatorily been
issued on the basis of OBC certificate issued by
Govt. of NCT of Delhi to a family member of the
concerned person who had been residing in Delhi
before 08/09/1993."
4. The respondent applied for the post. She underwent the
selection in which she was declared successful by the DSSSB. An
offer of appointment, albeit provisional, was issued to the
respondent vide Memorandum dated 18 August 2020. This was
followed by an Office Order dated 29 September 2020 issued by
5. On 10 March 2021, the respondent was served with an
Office Order issued by the Chief District Medical Officer22,
DoHFW, cancelling her candidature for the post of Pharmacist.
The said Office Order was stated to have been issued on the basis
of an e-mail received by the CDMO from the DoHFW on 2
November 2020 which, in turn, was stated to have been issued on
the basis of rejection notice dated 29 September 2020 issued by the
DSSSB, cancelling the candidature of the respondent. The reason
for cancellation of the candidature was stated to be that the
respondent had been selected by treating her as an OBC candidate
whereas the OBC certificate provided by her did not conform to the
requirement of para 5 of the advertisement dated 5 July 2018.
6. After unsuccessfully representing against the cancellation
of her candidature, the respondent moved the Central
Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 772/2021. By judgment
dated 13 July 2023, the Tribunal has allowed the said OA and
quashed the rejection notice dated 29 September 2020 issued by
the DSSSB and the order dated 10 March 2021 issued by the
CDMO. The petitioners have also been directed to allow the
respondent to resume her duties.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has
approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
8. We have heard Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. Rajat Aneja, learned Counsel for the
respondent at length.
9. Before proceeding on merits, the OBC certificate dated 17
December 2016 issued to the respondent is required to be
reproduced as under:
"REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KAPASHERA: SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
OBC CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE NO: 90500000200986
This is to certify that PRIYANKA D/o SANJEEV KUMAR
R/o 21, VILLAGE PANDWALA KALAN DELHI 110043
22 CDMO
INDIA belongs to the AHIR community of HARYANA
State which is recognised as Other Backward Class under:
Resolution No. 12011/68/93-BCC(C) dated 10/09/1993,
published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I,
Section I. No. 186, dated 13/9/1993, Resolution No.
12011/9/91-BCC(C) dated 19/10/1991, published in the
Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I. Section I. No. 88,
dated 20/10/1995.
Resolution No. 12011/7/95-BCC(C) dated 24/05/1995,
published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I,
Section I. No. 88, dated 25/05/1995.
Resolution No. 12011/44/96-BCC(C) dated 06/12/1996,
published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I,
Section I. No. 88, dated 11/12/1996.
Notification No. F(8)/11/99-2000/DSCST/SCP/OBC/2855
dated 31/05/2000. Notification No. F(6)/2000-
01/DSCST/SC/OBC/11677 dated 05/02/2004.
PRIYANKA and her family ordinarily resides at 21,
VILLAGE PANDWALA KALAN DELHI 110043 INDIA
This certificate is issued on the basis of OBC certificate
issued to SANJEEV KUMAR FATHER of PRIYANKA R/o
DISTRICT GURGAON STATE HARYANA belongs to AHIR
community of HARYANA State vide Certificate No.
050341501005161 dated 21/07/2015 issued by the
TEHSILDAR.
This is also to certify that she does not belong to the
person/sections (Creamy layer) mentioned in column 3 of
the Schedule of the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel
& Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT),
36033/3/2004-Estt.(Res), 36033/1/2013-Estt.(Res) dated
8/9/1993 9/03/2004 & 14/10/2008 and 27/5/2013
respectively."
10. It is not necessary to advert in detail to the respective
contentions of both sides, as, in our view, it is plain, from a reading
of the OBC certificate issued to the respondent and
extracted supra, that it does not conform to para 5 of the
advertisement dated 5 July 2018.
11. Para 5 envisages two kinds of OBC certificates, which
could be treated as valid for grant of OBC reservation. Of these,
para 5(iv)(B) refers to an OBC certificate issued by an authority
outside Delhi. Inasmuch as the OBC certificate of the respondent
was issued by the District Magistrate, Kapashera, Delhi, para
5(iv)(B) is not applicable.
12. Para 5(iv)(A) treats, as valid for the purposes of OBC
reservation, OBC certificates issued by the Revenue Department of
the GNCT of Delhi, on the basis of an old certificate issued to any
member of individual's family from GNCTD of Delhi.
13. We may note, even at this point, that even at the stage of
applying consequent to the advertisement dated 5 July 2018, the
respondent was aware of this condition, as contained in para 5 of
the advertisement. She never chose to challenge it. She, therefore,
was bound by the said condition.
14. Having not chosen at any point to challenge the said
condition, she could not, having participated in the selection as an
OBC candidate, seek to contend that the condition was illegal or
unreasonable in any manner.23To be fair, Mr. Aneja did not even
seek to so contend. We, nonetheless, deem it necessary to clarify
this point.
15. Clearly, para 5(iv)(A) does not ipso facto render any OBC
certificate issued by the Revenue Department of the GNCTD as
valid for the purposes of OBC reservation. The certificate has
additionally to be issued on the basis of an old certificate issued to
any member of individual's family from GNCTD of Delhi.
16. The OBC certificate of the respondent clearly states that it
was issued on the basis of an OBC certificate issued to the
respondent's father at Gurgaon, certifying that the Ahir community,
to which he belonged, was an OBC in Haryana.
17. It is clear that certificate no. 050341501005161 dated 21
July 2015 issued to the respondent's father was issued by the
authorities in Haryana, and not by the authorities in Delhi. This
fact, we may note, was not disputed by Mr. Aneja either.
18. The respondent's OBC certificate, therefore, having been
issued on the basis of an earlier OBC certificate issued to her father
by the revenue authorities in Haryana, was not a valid OBC
Certificate for the purposes of reservation, as envisaged by Clause
5(iv)(A) of the advertisement.
23 Rekha Sharma v Rajasthan High Court, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2109
19. The Tribunal was, therefore, clearly in error in holding that
the respondent was in possession of a valid OBC certificate.
20. Mr. Aneja, learned Counsel for the respondent, however,
pitches his case on Office Memorandum24 dated 8 April 1994
issued by the Department of Personnel and Training25, which
reads:
"In continuation of the DOPT'S letter of 36012/22/93-Estt.
(SCT) dated 15th November, 1993, I am directed to say that
it has been represented to this Department that persons
belonging to OBCs who have migrated from one State to
another for the purpose of employment, education, etc.
experience great difficulty in obtaining caste certificates
from the State from which they have migrated. In order to
remove this difficulty, it has been decided that the
prescribed authority of a State/U.T. Administration in terms
of the DOPT letter No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCl) dated
15th November, 1993 may issue the OBC certificate ta a
person who has migrated from another State on the
production of a genuine certificate issued to his father by
the prescribed authority of the State of his father's origin
except where the prescribed authority feels that a detailed
enquiry is necessary through the State of origin before the
issue of the certificate."
21. Mr. Aneja's contention is that the Ahir community to which
the respondent belongs, was an OBC in Haryana and that the
respondent, after marriage had shifted and taken up residence in
Delhi.
22. The aforesaid DOPT OM dated 8 April 1994, he submits,
entitled the respondent to be treated as an OBC in Delhi.
23. The submission entirely begs the issue at hand. The DOPT
OM dated 8 April 1994 only documented the decision of the DOPT
that the revenue authorities in a State could issue an OBC
certificate to a person who had migrated from another State on the
production of a certificate issued to her/his father by the authority
of the latter state.
24. Mr. Aneja submits that the respondent's OBC certificate
having been issued in terms of the aforesaid DOPT OM dated 8
April 1994, the respondent could not be denied the benefit thereof.
24 OM
25 DOPT
25. Mr. Aneja's submission actually defeats his case. By so
asserting, Mr. Aneja has acknowledged the fact that the OBC
certificate of the respondent has been issued, not on the basis of an
earlier OBC certificate issued to her father by the GNCTD, but on
the basis of a certificate issued to him by the authorities in
Haryana. The certificate, therefore, does not satisfy the second
requirement envisaged in para 5(iv)(A) of the advertisement, which
is that the OBC certificate of the candidate has to be issued on the
basis of an OBC certificate issued to her, or his, family from the
GNCTD.
26. We do not express any opinion on whether the aforesaid
condition was reasonable or unreasonable. To reiterate, the
condition is not under challenge. The respondent participated in the
selection and secured appointment in full awareness of the said
condition. She, therefore, took a calculated risk in tendering her
OBC certificate. Her appointment was provisional, subject to
verification of her entitlement to OBC reservation. The decision of
the DSSSB, that the respondent was not entitled to OBC
reservation as her OBC certificate was not issued on the basis of an
earlier certificate issued to her father from the GNCTD, is clearly
in order.
27. Additionally, were we to accept Mr. Aneja's submission,
we may be doing disservice and injustice to several other
candidates who may have been in possession of OBC certificates
such as that of the respondent, and who never participated in the
selection as the certificate did not conform to para 5(iv)(A) of the
advertisement.
28. It would be completely unjust, therefore, on our part, to
allow the respondent to be regarded as an OBC candidate, even
though her OBC certificate is not in terms of para 5(iv)(A) of the
advertisement.
29. It is also well settled that court cannot tweak the terms of an
advertisement or permit a candidate to escape the rigours thereof. It
is not the case of the respondent that the provision for OBC
reservation as contained in para 5 of the advertisement was in any
way contrary to any Recruitment Rules, or other binding statutory
or executive instructions.
30. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the
DSSSB was correct in cancelling the candidature of the
respondent."
32. The decision in Priyanka is, clearly, on all fours with the
present case, both factually as well as legally.
33. The Tribunal, in allowing, Jyoti's OA, placed reliance of the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rishabh Malik.
We feel that, in doing so, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that there is
nothing, in the judgment in Rishabh Malik, to indicate that the
advertisement or notification under consideration in that case
contained a stipulation to the effect that the OBC certificate produced
by the candidate had to have been issued on the basis of an OBC
certificate issued to the candidate's near relative by the GNCTD.
34. It is true that, in the said decision, too, the reason for treating
the candidate Rishabh Malik OBC certificate as invalid was because it
was issued on the basis of an earlier OBC certificate issued to his
father by Tehsildar, Muzaffarpur, UP. If the following para from the
said decision is read in isolation, it may appear that the decision
applies to the present case:
"6. The admitted position which has emerged from the record
is that the respondent was not only born and brought up, but he had
also received all his education in the GNCT of Delhi. Further, he
belongs to the Jat community which has been duly recognised as an
OBC by the GNCTD. Merely because he was issued his initial
OBC category certificate by the Office of the Deputy
Commissioner, North District, Delhi on the basis of the certificate
issued to his father by the Tehsildar, Budhana, Muzaffarnagar
(U.P.), it cannot at all be said that the petitioner is an outsider
OBC. Evidently, the respondent is a permanent resident of Delhi
and the Revenue Department of the GNCTD had, while issuing the
OBC certificate to him, categorically stated that he belonged to the
Jat community which has been recognised as a backward class by
the GNCTD vide its notification dated 20.01.1995. In these
circumstances, we are unable to appreciate as to why the
respondent should not be treated as being eligible for applying
under the OBC category for a post under the GNCTD, when the
community to which he belongs has been duly recognised as an
OBC category by the GNCTD, and he is an ordinary resident of
GNCT of Delhi. The factum of the respondent's OBC category
status being based on a caste certificate issued to his father by the
state government of U.P., cannot be used to deny the respondent of
the benefits made available to the OBC category within the
territory of Delhi, once it is admitted that the Jat community is also
recognized as a backward community by the GNCTD."
35. There is no gainsaying that several of the facts in Rishabh
Malik overlap with those in the present case. In that case, too,
(i) the OBC certificate issued to Rishabh Malik was based
on an earlier OBC certificate issued to his father by the
Revenue Authorities in Muzaffarpur, UP,
(ii) the Jat community to which Rishabh Malik belonged was
to duly recognised as an OBC by the GNCTD, and
(iii) Rishabh Malik was a permanent resident of Delhi.
36. While these facts may overlap with the facts of the present case,
there are two prominent differences between the two cases. The first,
already noticed earlier, is the fact that the judgment does not note any
stipulation, in the advertisement pursuant to which Rishabh Malik
applied for appointment as an OBC candidate, to the effect that an
OBC certificate of the candidate had to have been issued on the basis
of an earlier OBC certificate issued to a near relative by the GNCTD.
The second distinguishing feature is that the OBC certificate produced
by Rishabh Malik, as per the recital of facts in para 6 of the judgment,
clearly recorded the statement of the Revenue Department of the
GNCTD that the Jat community, to which Rishabh Malik belonged,
had "been recognised as a Backward Class by the GNCTD vide its
notification dated 20 January 1995". Thus, an acknowledgement that
the caste to which Rishabh Malik belonged was an OBC in the
GNCTD was expressly recorded in the OBC certificate issued by the
revenue authorities in the GNCTD. In the present case, no such
statement is to be found in the OBC certificate dated 2 January 2013
issued to Jyoti.
37. The Vacancy Notice, insofar as it envisaged grant of OBC
reservation, contained strict terms, in Clause 5 thereof. Clause 5(iv)
made it absolutely clear that only two types of certificates would be
accepted as valid for grant of the benefit of OBC reservation. Sub-
clause (A) dealt with OBC certificates issued by the Revenue
Department of the GNCTD and sub-clause (B) dealt with OBC
certificates issued by authorities outside Delhi. Inasmuch as the OBC
certificate dated 2 January 2013 had been issued by the Revenue
Authorities in the GNCTD, sub-clause (B) would not apply. We are
concerned, therefore, only with sub-clause (A) in Clause 5(iv) of the
advertisement.
38. Sub-clause (A) required the OBC certificate, if issued by the
Revenue Department of the GNCTD, to have been issued on the basis
of an old certificate issued to any member of the individual's family
from the GNCTD. As we have held in Priyanka, this condition is non-
negotiable. We have to bear in mind that there may be several
candidates such as the petitioner, who have in their possession OBC
certificates issued by the Revenue Authorities in the GNCTD, but on
the basis of an old certificate issued to a family member by the
Revenue Authority outside the GNCTD who may not have applied
because of that reason. The petitioner cannot be singled out for special
treatment. The OBC certificate dated 2 January 2013, not having been
issued on the basis of an old certificate issued to any member of the
family by the GNCTD, cannot be treated as a valid OBC certificate for
the purposes of Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice.
39. The respondent has, along with her counter affidavit placed on
record yet another OBC certificate dated 24 June 2022, issued to her
by the Tehsildar, Dwarka along with a clarificatory note dated 12
September 2022 issued by the Tehsildar, Dwarka in connection
therewith. The OBC certificate dated 24 June 2022 and the
clarification certificate dated 12 September 2022 read thus:
"REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DWARKA : SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
OBC CERTIFICATE (DELHI)
CERTIFICATE NO. 90500000880862
This is to certify that JYOTI D/o DHARAM VIR R/o RZ-B-59,
BINDAPUR EXTN, UTTAM NAGAR DELHI 110059 INDIA
belongs to the NAI community which is recognised as Other
Backward Class under the Government of NCT of Delhi notified
vide Notification No. F.28(93)/91-92/SCST/P&S/ 4384 dated
1995-01-20 published in the Gazette of Delhi Extraordinary Part-
lV.
JYOTI and her family ordinarily resides at RZ-B-59, BINDAPUR
EXTN, UTTAM NAGAR DELHI 110059 INDIA
This is also to ertify that she does not belong to the person/sections
(Creamy layer) mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule to the Govt.
of India, Department of Personnel & Training O.M. No.
36012/22/93-Estt(SCT), 36033/3/2004-Estt(Res), 36033/1/2013-
Estt(Res) dated 8/9/1993 9/03/2004 & 14/10/2008 and 27/5/2013
respectively,
TEHSILDAR
*******
"GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE (DWARKA)
SDM OFFICE COMPLEX, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI
__________________________________________________
No. F.TEH (DW)/2022/04 Dated:12.09.2022
To WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN
Whereas, Hon'ble Commission for the Other Backward
Classes of NCT of Delhi has directed the undersigned to clarify the
Delhi OBC status of Ms. Jyoti B/o Sh. Dharamvir after getting
representations from the same.
Whereas, a certificate bearing no. OBC/09/931/20131/11/9/
2012/9641104432 dated 02.01.2013 of OBC status belonging to
U.P. State along-with non-creamy layer status was issued to Ms.
Jyoti Do Sh. Bharamvir R/o B-59, Bindapur Extn., Uttam Nager,
New Delhi based on the OBC status certificate issued to Sh.
Dharamvir (father of the applicant) by the U.P, Govt. In respect of
the same, the applicant has submitted that she had applied for Delhi
OBC status certificate at that time along-with necessary documents
certifying the residential status of him in Delhi prior to 1993 and
OBC status certificate of Sh. Dharamvir (father of the applicant)
issued by the U.P. Govt, was provided only to certify the caste of
the applicant at that time. However, the certificate
no.OBC/09/931/20131/11/9/ 2012/9641104432 dated 02.01.2013
was issued on the basis of caste certificate issued to the father of
the applicant and the residential proof (prior to 1993) given by the
applicant had not been considered at that time.
Whereas, the above said certificate
no.OBC/09/931/20131/11/9/ 2012/9641104432 dated 02.01.2013
was lost and a lost report no.407604/2022 dated 17/05/2022 has
been lodged/registered on Delhi Police Portal in this regard by Ms.
Jyoti D/o Sh. Dharamvir. Ms, Jyott has further applied for a
new/fresh Delhi OBC status certificate in June, 2022 and a
certificate no.90500000880862 dated 24.06.2022 showing Delhi
OBC status along-with non-creamy layer status has been issued by
the Executive Magistrate Dwarka as per applicable/extant
rules/SOPs.
Whereas, Certificate already issued to the applicant in year
2033 (other state OBC status) could not be rectified at this stage
and a new certificate bearing Delhi OBC status has already been
issued to the application in year 2022 as per applicable/extant
rules/SOPs. For, Delhi OBC status, an applicant must have
residential proof in Delhi since 1993, and the applicant is having
the same.
Whereas, it is evident that the applicant has residential
proof in Delhi before 1993 and the status was same at the time of
issuance of certificate no.OBC/09/931/20131/11/9/2012/
9641104432 dated 02.01.2013 also. Non-Creamy layer status of the
applicant was also confirmed at that time (in 2013) that shall
remain same on PAN India basis irrespective of the State.
Further, in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble
Commission for the Other Backward Classes of NCT of Delhi it is
hereby clarified that Ms. Jyoti D/o Sh. Dharamvir is having the
Delhi OBC status (Non-Creamy layer) and certificate issued to the
him in 2013 could not be rectified at this time and after proper
examination of the relevant documents submitted by the applicant
in claim of their status, a certificate no.90500000880862 dated
24.06.2022 certifying the Delhi OBC status (Non-Creamy layer) of
Ms. Jyoti D/o Sh. Dharamvir has already been issued to the
applicant by the undersigned.
(HARMINDER KAUR)
EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE/TEHSILDAR DWARKA"
40. Apparently, though the aforesaid OBC certificate and the
clarification certificate were issued more than a year prior to the
passing of the impugned judgment by the Tribunal, they were never
placed before the Tribunal. The respondent does not contend, in her
counter affidavit, that these documents were furnished before the
Tribunal. Nor does the counter affidavit provide any explanation for
her failure to do so. In the absence of any such explanation, there is
actually no reason for us to advert to these documents at all.
41. Nonetheless, we have perused them. Having done so, it is clear
that the OBC certificate dated 24 June 2022 also does not conform to
the requirements of Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice as it does not
purport to have been issued on the basis of any old OBC certificate
issued to any member of the respondent's family by the GNCTD.
42. Nor does the explanatory note dated 12 September 2022 contain
any clarification to the effect that, prior to 2 January 2013, any OBC
certificate had been issued to a family member of the petitioner by the
GNCTD. Rather, a fresh OBC certificate had been sought by Jyoti on
the basis of the fact that she had been residing in Delhi prior to 1993.
When one reads Clause 5(iv) of the Vacancy Notice, it becomes clear
that the stipulation regarding pre-1993 residence in Delhi applies only
to OBC certificates issued by authorities outside Delhi.
43. Clause 5(iv) of the Vacancy Notice requires an OBC certificate,
if issued by an authority outside Delhi, to certify that the candidate has
been residing in Delhi prior to 1993. That requirement is not stipulated
in respect of OBC certificates issued by the GNCTD. In the case of
OBC certificates issued by the GNCTD, sub-clause (A) in Clause
5(iv) of the Vacancy Notice applies. What is required in the case of
such certificates is an express statement in the certificate that it has
been issued on the basis of an old certificate issued by the GNCTD to
a family member of the candidate. This requirement is not satisfied
either by the certificate dated 2 January 2013 filed by Jyoti with her
application or by the certificate dated 24 June 2022 filed along with
the counter affidavit before this Court.
44. The entire issuance of the certificate dated 24 June 2022, in
fact, appears to be shrouded in mystery. In the first place, as already
noted, this document was never filed before the Tribunal, though it
purports to have been issued more than a year prior to the passing of
the impugned judgment. Secondly, the clarification by the Tehsildar
Dwarka was issued almost more than 2 ½ months after the certificate
itself was issued on 12 September 2022. In the said clarification, it is
recorded that the earlier certificate issued to the respondent on 2
January 2013 was lost, and a lost report had been lodged in that regard
by the respondent with the Delhi Police. The date of loosing of the
certificate is not mentioned. The lost report has come to have been
filed as late as on 17 May 2022. Nearly two years after that, the
present petition came to be filed before this Court in which a copy of
the certificate dated 2 January 2013, stated to have been lost around
May 2022, has been annexed.
45. We, therefore, are reluctant to accord any significance to the
OBC certificate dated 24 June 2022 filed by the respondent with her
counter affidavit. In any case, as we have already noted, this
certificate too, does not conform to Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice.
46. In matters of recruitment, especially where a large number of
candidates apply, the conditions in the notification or advertisement
inviting applications have to be strictly construed and strictly
followed. The Court cannot, of its own accord, grant relaxation, on
principles of fairness or equity. The reason is obvious. If the Court is
to relax the requirements of the notifications or advertisement inviting
applications, it would do injustice to several candidates who, had the
requirements been thus relaxed, might have applied and did not do so
merely because of the manner in which the requirements have been
framed in the notification or advertisement. The Court cannot, in such
cases, proceed on sympathetic considerations.
47. As the case is fully covered by our decision in the judgment of
this Court in Priyanka, and the decision in Rishabh Malik, on which
the Tribunal has relied, is clearly distinguishable on facts, we are of
the opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot
sustain.
48. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment dated 8
December 2023 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. OA
1538/2022 filed by the respondent before the Tribunal shall stand
dismissed.
49. We clarify, however, that if consequent to the passing of the
impugned judgment dated 8 December 2023, the respondent has
secured appointment and any payment has been made to her
consequent thereto, no recovery from the respondent shall be effected.
50. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms with no
orders as to costs.
WP (C) 373/2024 [GNCTD and Anr. v Nisha]
51. To the extent that the entitlement of the respondent Nisha, in
this writ petition, to the benefit of OBC reservation is in issue, the
controversy here is similar to that in WP (C) 10587/2024.
52. Applications were invited, by the DSSSB, for recruitment to
various posts in the GNCTD, the New Delhi Municipal Council and
the erstwhile South, North and East Delhi Municipal Corporations,
vide Advertisement No. 01/13. The respondent, who belongs to the Jat
community, also applied as an OBC candidate. That the respondent
fulfils the prescribed eligibility and other stipulations contained in the
Advertisement, is not disputed. The stipulation regarding OBC
reservation, contained in Clause 6 of the Advertisement, read as
under:
"6. RESERVATION BENEFITS
(i) Reservation benefits will be available to the
SC/ST/OBC/Physically Handicapped & other special category
candidates in accordance with the instructions / orders / circulars
issued from time to time by the Govt. of Delhi. The reservation
benefits under SC/STs shall be admissible as per judgment dated
12/09/2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as passed in No.
5390/2010, CM No. 20815/2010 Deepak Kumar and Ors Vs
District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and Ors. as per which SC/ST
candidates of other States /U.Ts. shall also be eligible for
reservation benefit. However this shall be further subject to policy
decision of Govt. of Delhi for SC/ST migrants of other States.
(ii) Candidates who wish to be considered against reserved
vacancies and/or to seek age relaxation, must be in possession of
relevant certificates issued to them on or before the closing date by
the competent/notified authority (in prescribed format) otherwise
their claim for SC/ST/OBC/Physically Handicapped/Ex-
Servicemen & other special category will not be entertained and
their applications will be considered against Un-reserved (UR)
category vacancies, if eligible otherwise.
(iii) The OBC candidates must be in possession of filled
prescribed Annexure I, along with his/her caste certificate issued by
Govt. of Delhi only."
Annexure I to the Advertisement contained the following format for
the OBC certificate:
"Annexure-1
FORM OF DECLARATION/UNDERTAKING TO BE
SUMITTED BY THE OBC CANDIDATE [IN ADDITION TO
THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE (OBC)] TO BE FILED
AT THE TIME OF VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
I, ________________ Son/Daughter of Shri _______________
resident of Village/town/city _________________ district
______________ State _________________ hereby declare that I
belong to the _______________ Community which is recognized
as a backward class by the Government of India for the purpose of
reservation in Services as per orders contained in the Department
of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No.36012/22/93-
Estt. (SCT) dated -8/09/1993. It is also declared that I do not
belong to persons/sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in Column 3
of the Schedule to the above referred Office Memorandum dated
08/09/1993, which is modified vide Department of Personnel and
Training Office Memorandum No.36033/3/2004-Estt. (Res.) dated
14/10/2008.
Place: __________________
(Signature of the Candidate)
Date: __________________
(Name of the Candidate)"
53. The respondent was in possession of the following OBC
certificate dated 6 February 2014, issued by the DC (North West
District), Delhi, which she submitted with her application:
"OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (NORTH
WEST DISTRICT), DELHI
No:OBC/06/957/11498/6/2/2014/90509571230607/6369
Dated:6/2/2014
This is to certify that Sh/Smt/Ku: NISHA
S/o,W/o,D/o: ASHOK KUMAR
Resident of: F-153, VIJAY VIHAR PH-II SEC-4 ROHINI
DELHI
Belongs to the commnity JAT Which is recognised as a Other
Backward Class (OBC) under:
1. Resolution No. 12011/68/93-BCC(C) dated the
10/09/1993, published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary Part I, Section I. No. 186, dated 13/09/1993.
2. Resolution No. 12011/9/91-BCC(C) dated the
19/10/1991, published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary Part I, Section I. No. 88, dated 20/10/1995.
3. Resolution No. 12011/7/95-BCC(C) dated the
24/5/1995, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary
Part I, Section I. No. 88, dated 25/5/1995.
4. Resolution No. 12011/44/96-BCC dated the
6/12/1996, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary
Part 1, Section I. No. 210, dated 11/12/1996.
5. Notification No. F(8)/11/99-
2000/DS/CST/SCP/OBC/2855 dated 31/5/2000.
6. No.FB(6)/2000-01/DSCST/SC/OBC/11677 dated
5/2/2004.
This certificate is issued on the basis of OBC Certificate issued to
Shri / Smt/Kumari ASHOK KUMAR Father of Sh/Smt/Kumari
NISHA resident of DISTT. BULAND SHAHAR U.P who belongs
to JAT caste which is recognised as Other Backward Class in the
State / U.T. U.P Issued by the TEHSILDAR vide their No. 465
Dated: 19/5/2008.
It is also certified that he/she does not belong to the
persons/sections (Creamy layer) mentioned in column 3 of the
Schedule to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and
Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 8/9/1993,O.M.
No.36033/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated 9/3/2004 and 14/10/2008.
Sd/-
Dated: 6/2/2014 (RANBIR SINGH)
Executive Magistrate, ROHINI"
54. Apparently, under the above Advertisement 01/13, recruitments
were made for post codes 68/10 and 03/13. Though some objection in
that regard finds place in the OA filed by the respondent before the
Tribunal, that issue was not seriously canvassed either before the
Tribunal or before this Court.
55. As the respondent found that OBC candidates who had scored
lesser marks than her were offered appointment, while she was not,
she approached the Tribunal by way of OA 472/2019.
56. The DSSSB, in its counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal,
submitted that, as the OBC certificate dated 6 February 2014, issued
to the respondent, had been issued on the basis of an OBC certificate
issued to her father Ashok Kumar by the Tehsildar, Bulandshahr, UP,
the respondent could not be extended the benefit of OBC reservation
in Delhi. She was, therefore, treated as an Unreserved candidate, and,
as she had scored less than the last selected Unreserved candidate,
could not be appointed.
57. The only issue before the Tribunal was, therefore, whether the
respondent was entitled to be considered an OBC candidate.
58. The Tribunal proceeded to allow the respondent's OA on the
basis of the judgment of a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in
GNCTD v Anjana26. As the judgment in Anjana is short, we may
reproduce it, in full, thus:
"1. The petitioner impugns the order of the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") dated 28.03.2019 in O.A. No.
2986/2016, which while allowing the respondent's O.A. has
directed the GNCTD to, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order, take further steps apropos
issuance of order of appointment, treating the present respondent
as an OBC candidate, in accordance with the position of merit
obtained by her in the written test.
2. Three years have gone-by since the passage of the said
order. No corollary relief has been received by the respondent. She
had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher
26 MANU/DE/1851/2022
(Nursery), (Post Code 3/13). She claimed OBC status.
Examinations were held. Results were declared. She came in the
merit list. However, her result was cancelled on 26.02.2016 as it
was found that the OBC certificate produced by her was issued on
the basis of her father's OBC status recognized in Uttar Pradesh.
The said certificate was issued by the Executive Magistrate, Palam,
New Delhi.
3. Subsequently by Public Notice dated 10.01.2017 the
GNCTD provided all meritorious candidates another opportunity
of filing their relevant documents. In the petitioner's case, the
relevant document would be the OBC Certificate. The said Public
Notice, inter alia, reads as under:-
If any candidate is having marks above the cut-off but
his/her roll number has not been mentioned in Annexure
"A" he/she will also attend the office on 24.01.2017 &
25.01.2017 along with copies of documents, admit card and
two passport size photographs.
This is final opportunity for the candidates failing which it
will be presumed that the candidates are not interested for
the post of Asstt. Teacher (Nursery).
"Note:- (i) OBC (Certificate) Should be issued by the
Competent Authority of G.N.C.T. of Delhi, OBC
(Outsider/Migrant/Central) will be treated as UR
Candidate."
4. In the interim, on 10.03.2016, eight months before the
issuance of the aforesaid Public Notice, a fresh OBC Certificate
had already been issued to the petitioner by the Tehsildar, Dwarka,
New Delhi on the basis of her residence in Delhi, inasmuch as the
"Lodhi Community" she claimed to be from, was recognized as
OBC under GNCTD Notification dated 20.01.1995.
5. However, despite the production of the latter OBC
Certificate of 10.03.2016, she was not granted employment. The
first OBC certificate was issued on the basis of her father hailing
from Uttar Pradesh and belonging to the Lodhi OBC category.
Between the issuance of the first and the second OBC certificates,
the community to which he belonged remained unaltered, indeed
subsists. His daughter-the petitioner, was issued an OBC certificate
on the basis of the father's residence in Delhi at least from 1995.
Albeit the father claims to have resided in Delhi since 1986. On the
basis of a driving licence issued in Delhi, his Ration Card and
other documents. The respondent was born and educated in Delhi.
Her status as a member of the Lodhi Community, which forms a
part of Other Backward Class, remains unaltered. This community
is recognised as OBC as per GNCTD notification of 20.01.1995.
Therefore, issuance of OBC certificate to her is justified. In terms
of a subsequent Memorandum dated 13.01.2017 issued by the
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board ("DSSSB"), the
petitioner was granted a last and final opportunity to produce the
OBC certificate which she did produce and submitted to DSSSB
within the time specified.
6. The petitioner states that in view of two OBC certificates,
the dispute arose as to which one will be valid. There is no dispute
here. It is only the petitioners' indecision to accept the relevant
document. The latter OBC certificate of the successful candidate
meets all requirements of the recruitment notice. It should have
been accepted. An administrative approval/decision should have
been taken instead of bringing the case to this court. The court is of
the view, that whichever way it is seen, the respondent continues to
belong to the OBC category. In the first certificate, her recognition
in the OBC category was on the basis of her father hailing from
Uttar Pradesh whereas in the second certificate, it was on the basis
of her being born and raised in Delhi but the status of her father
belonging to the OBC Lodhi class remains constant and intact.
Therefore, she is rightly certified in the "OBC" category.
7. Therefore, the respondent shall be treated as an OBC
candidate and shall be issued an appointment letter within four
weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The impugned order calls for no interference. The petition
is disposed-off in the above terms. All pending applications also
stand disposed-off."
59. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the Tribunal, the GNCTD
has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
60. We have heard Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. M.K. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel for the
respondent, at length.
61. Ms. Ahlawat predicates her challenge on
(i) Circular dated 27 July 2007 issued by the Services
Department of the GNCTD to the DSSSB,
(ii) Circular dated 28 July 2016 issued by the Services
Department to all Heads of Departments in the GNCTD, and
(iii) GNCTD OM27 dated 31 May 2021, titled "Reservation
for OBCs in the jobs under the Government of NCT of Delhi -
reg."
These communications read as under:
Services Deptt Circular dated 27 July 2007
"Sub: Reservation for OBCs in the jobs under the
Government of NCT of Delhi.
Madam/Sir,
I am directed to inform that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor has
considered the matter regarding grant of benefit of reservation to
OBCs in Civil posts under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and has
decided that the Central list for OBCs qua Delhi and castes defined
as OBCs by OBC Commission and accepted so by the Government
be extended the benefit of reservation In Delhi.
In light of the above, appropriate action for grant of benefits of
reservation to OBCs in the civil posts of Govt. of NCT of Delhi
may be taken accordingly."
Services Deptt Circular dated 28 July 2016
"Sub: Reservation for OBCs in the jobs under the
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi - reg.
Sir/Madam,
In continuation with this department's circular dated 27.07.2007 on
the subject cited above (copy enclosed).I am directed to inform that
27 Office Memorandum
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi has decided to accept the following two
types of certificates as valid certificates for grant of benefit of
reservation to OBCS in civil posts under Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi:
1) OBC certificate (Delhi) issued by the Revenue
Department of GNCT of Delhi, on the basis of any old
certificate issued to any member of individual's family
from GNCT of Delhi.
2) OBC certificate issued by a Competent
Authority outside Delhi to a person belonging to a
community duly notified as OBC by GNCT of Delhi. This
certificate should have mandatorily been issued on the
basis of OBC certificate issued by Govt. of N.C.T. of
Delhi to any family member of the concerned person who
had been residing in Delhi before 08.09.1993,
This issues with the prior approval of the Competent
Authority."
GNCTD OM dated 31 May 2021
Dated: 31/05/2021
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Reservation for OBCs in the jobs under the Government of
N.C.T. of Delhi reg.
In continuation of this Department's letter No. F. 19(10)/2001/S-
III/Pt. File/2278-2285 dated 27th July, 2007 and
th
No.F.19(01)/2012/S.IV/1241-1258 dated 28 July, 2016 on the
subject cited above (copies enclosed), the undersigned is directed
to convey the clarification that:
1) an individual, who possesses OBC (Delhi) Certificate
issued by the Revenue Department, Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi certifying that he/she belongs to a caste
which has been notified as OBC by the Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi, shall be entitled for the benefits of
reservation to OBCS in civil posts in various Departments of
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, irrespective of
the fact that the said OBC (Delhi) Certificate has been issued with
or without mentioning of old certificate issued to his/her father,
siblings and real Uncles (paternal side only)
2) an individual who possesses the OBC Certificate issued by a
Competent Authority outside Delhi, certifying his/her belonging to
a community duly notified as OBC by the Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi shall also be entitled for the benefits of
reservation to OBCs in civil posts under Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi. This certificate should have mandatorily
been issued on the basis of OBC Certificate issued by Government
of National Capital territory of Delhi to his/her father, siblings and
real uncles (paternal side only) of the concerned person, who had
been residing in Delhi before 8th September, 1993.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
62. As against this, Mr. Bharadwaj submits that the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal is unexceptionable. He also places reliance
on the judgment of this Bench in Sandeep Sirohi v GNCTD28.
Analysis
63. As in all such cases, much would pivot on the exact terms of the
Clause in the Advertisement which envisages the requirements to be
fulfilled by the candidate who seeks the benefit of OBC reservation.
64. Clause 6 of the Advertisement stipulates, apropos OBC
reservation, that
(i) instructions/orders/circulars issued by the GNCTD would
be applicable,
(ii) the candidate must be in possession of the relevant
certificate on or before the closing date, and
(iii) the certificate must have been issued by the competent
authority in the prescribed format (in Annexure I to the
Advertisement).
28 2025 SCC OnLine Del 621
65. A perusal of the OBC Certificate dated 6 February 2014 issued
to the respondent discloses that it has been issued by the DC (North
West District), Delhi, and conforms to the format contained in
Annexure I to the Advertisement. It was also submitted by the
respondent with her application. Conditions (ii) and (iii) in para 64
supra, therefore, stand satisfied.
66. Ms. Ahlawat, however, relies on Condition (i). Her contention
is that Condition (i) made applicable, mutatis mutandis, instructions,
orders and circulars issued by the GNCTD. The OBC Certificate
dated 6 February 2014, issued to the respondent, does not satisfy the
Circulars dated 27 July 2007 and 28 July 2016 and GNCTD OM dated
31 May 2021, as the OBC Certificate was issued on the basis of the
OBC certificate issued to the respondent's father in UP; ergo, the
respondent is not entitled to be treated as an OBC candidate.
67. We may note that, unlike the case of Jyoti, the respondent in
WP (C) 10587/2024, also decided by this judgment, there is no
requirement, in the Advertisement in the present case, of the OBC
Certificate having to be issued on the basis of an OBC certificate
issued to a near relative of the candidate.
68. Adverting, now, to the Circulars dated 27 July 2007 and 28 July
2016 issued by the Services Department, and GNCTD OM dated 31
May 2021, we find the position that emerges to be as under.
69. Services Department Circular dated 27 July 2007
Circular dated 27 July 2007 merely extends the benefit, to Delhi, the
benefit of OBC certification notified in the Central list of OBCs.
Inasmuch as the respondent is not seeking the benefit of any such
reservation of her caste in the Central list, this Circular is of no
relevance.
70. Services Department Circular dated 28 July 2016 and GNCTD
OM dated 31 May 2021
70.1 Though these instructions would obviously not apply to the
present case, as it was issued after Advertisement 01/13, in response to
which the respondent applied, their terms are significant.
70.2 Circular dated 28 July 2016, which was issued in continuation
of the Circular dated 27 July 2007, intimated the fact that the GNCTD
was accepting, as valid certificates for grant of benefit to OBCs in
civil posts under the GNCTD, (i) OBC certificates issued by the
Revenue authorities in the GNCTD, on the basis of any old certificate
issued to a family member of the candidate from the GNCTD, or (ii)
OBC certificates issued by the competent authority outside Delhi, to a
person belonging to a community notified as an OBC by the GNCTD,
on the basis of the OBC certificate issued by the GNCTD to a family
member of the candidate who had been residing in Delhi prior to 8
September 1993.
70.3 It becomes immediately apparent that the conditions stipulated
in the two types of OBC Certificates, to which the Circular dated 27
July 2016 alludes, are the very same conditions which found express
mention in Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice pursuant to which Jyoti,
the respondent in WP (C) 10587/2024, had applied for recruitment.
70.4 No such conditions stand incorporated in Clause 6 of
Advertisement 01/13 in issue in the present writ petition. Instead,
Clause 6(ii) required the candidate to be in possession of an OBC
certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format.
The Clause contains no reference to the source from which this
"prescribed format" could be found.
70.5 Annexure I to the Advertisement contains the format of the
Declaration to be submitted by the candidate. There is no
requirement, either in Annexure I, or in any "prescribed format" to
which the Advertisement even makes reference, much less alludes, of
the OBC certificate which the candidate is required to produce.
70.6 We see no reason why, if the DSSSB desired the OBC
certificate to have been of the types envisaged in the Services Circular
dated 28 July 2016, the said stipulation could not have been
incorporated in the Advertisement itself, as was done in the case of the
Vacancy Notice pursuant to which Jyoti, the petitioner in WP (C)
10587/2024, applied. These conditions, therefore, were introduced,
even in the respondents' own instructions, only on 28 July 2016.
70.7 The DSSSB can obviously not seek to apply, to an
Advertisement issued in 2013, conditions which were incorporated by
the Services Circular dated 28 July 2016.
70.8 The GNCTD OM dated 31 May 2021, for its part, made the
basis on which the OBC Certificate had been issued, in the case where
it was issued by Revenue authorities in Delhi, wholly insignificant.
The OBC Certificate was only required to certify that the candidate
belonged to a caste which was notified as an OBC in Delhi.
70.9 In any event, as already noted, the Circular dated 28 July 2016
and the GNCTD OM dated 31 May 2021 having been issued much
after Advertisement 01/13, pursuant to which the respondent applied,
their stipulations can have no effect in determining the respondent's
entitled to the benefit of OBC reservation.
70.10 The Circulars dated 27 July 2007 and 28 July 2016, and the
GNCTD OM dated 31 May 2021 cannot, therefore, support the case
that Ms. Ahlawat seeks to canvas.
71. Re. the alleged "migrant" status of the respondent
71.1 It has further been sought to be contended, in para 2 (viii) of the
writ petition, that the OBC Certificate dated 6 February 2014 had been
issued to the respondent as a migrant. The OBC Certificate says no
such thing, and we are unwilling to read, into the Certificate,
something which finds no place therein. In any event, if the DSSSB,
or the GNCTD, was of the view that the respondent was not eligible
for OBC reservation because her OBC certificate had been issued to
her as a migrant, no such mention being found in the OBC Certificate
itself, the least that the petitioners were required to do was to put the
respondent on notice in that regard and seek a clarification from her.
71.2 Unlike the case of Jyoti, the respondent in WP (C) 10587/2024,
the rejection of the respondent's request for being treated as an OBC
applicant is not because of any defect in the OBC certificate produced
by her, vis-à-vis any stipulation to be found in the Advertisement
itself. The petitioners are seeking to justify the rejection on
considerations outside the Advertisement; in fact, by reading, into the
OBC certificate, stipulations not to be found therein. This could not
have been done without seeking an explanation from the respondent in
that regard.
71.3 We deem it expedient to reproduce, in this context, para 2 (xix)
of the writ petition, which reads:
"(xix) That the Ld Tribunal failed to appreciate that the
candidature of the Respondent under the category "OBC" was
cancelled on the ground that OBC certificate produced by her was
issued on the basis of OBC certificate issued in favour of his (sic
her) father in the State of UP (being a resident of the said State),
i.e., the OBC certificate issued to him is from outside Delhi, which
is valid in State of U.P. only and not in Delhi."
In submitting thus, the petitioners seem to have overlooked the fact
that it was not her father, but the respondent herself, who was seeking
employment. The OBC certificate issued to the respondent was not
issued by the Revenue authorities in UP but by the Revenue
authorities in Delhi, and entirely fulfilled the stipulations contained in
Clause 6 of Advertisement 01/13.
71.4 Veena
71.4.1 Ms Ahlawat cites, in this context, the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Veena.
71.4.2 Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has, times without
number, emphasized that Article 141 of the Constitution of India does
not require judgments of the Supreme Court to be likened to theorems
of Euclid, and that they are to be understood and applied in the light
of the facts which were before the Court29, we find that the decision in
Veena is being cited, again and again, unmindful of the fact that the
OBC certificate produced by the respondent in that case was issued
by the Revenue authorities outside Delhi. This is clear from the
opening sentence in para 3 of the judgment, which reads:
"The respondent candidates claimed to belong to OBCs on the
basis of certificate issued in a State other than the Government of
the National Capital Territory of Delhi."
(Emphasis supplied)
Deepak Bajaj, in fact, goes on to reproduce, with approval, the
following classic exordium of Lord Halsbury in Quinn v Leathem30:
"Now before discussing the case of Allen v Flood31 and what was
decided therein, there are two observations of a general character
which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often
said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the
particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the
generality of the expressions which may be found there are not
intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and
qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such
expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an
authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be
quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it.
29 Refer Vinay Prakash Singh v Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1595, UOI v Bharat Forge Ltd,
(2022) 17 SCC 188, Deepak Bajaj v State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14
30 1901 AC 495
31 (1898) AC 1
Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a
logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law
is not always logical at all."
71.4.3 In fact, one of the primary contentions of Veena, the
respondent before the Supreme Court, was that "there was no
obligation on the respondents to produce such certificate from the
prescribed authorities in Delhi". It was in this context that the
Supreme Court returned the following findings, in paras 7 and 8 of the
judgment:
"7. It is clear that the Government of India had notified on 15-
11-1993 two model forms of certificates to be furnished by the
OBC candidates seeking benefit of reservations. The form
prescribed in Annexure 'A' thereto was required to be produced by
candidates belonging to OBCs applying for appointment to posts
under the Government of India and which certificate was to be
verified from prescribed authorities indicated therein and a note
was added thereto to the effect that for the Government of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi Annexure 'AA' was required to
be fulfilled. Annexure 'AA' prescribes a different kind of
certificate which reads as follows:
*****
A careful reading of this notification would indicate that OBCs
would be recognised as such in the Government of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi as notified in the notification dated 20-1-
1995 and further for the purpose of verification of claims for
belonging to castes/communities in Delhi as per the list notified by
the National Capital Territory of Delhi the certificates will have to
be issued only by the specified authorities and certificates issued
by any other authority could not be accepted. The Government of
India has also issued instructions from time to time in this regard
which indicated that a person belonging to OBC on migration from
the State of his origin in (sic to) another State where his caste was
not in the OBC list was entitled to the benefits or concessions
admissible to OBCs in his State of origin and the Union
Government, but not in the State to which he has migrated. Thus
the High Court lost sight of these aspects of the matter in making
the impugned order in either ignoring the necessary notifications
issued in regard to classification of OBC categories or in the matter
of verification thereof. Thus the order made by the High Court in
this regard deserves to be reversed.
8. However, one aspect has to be borne in mind and that is the
respondent candidates had made applications as if they belong to
OBCs on the basis of the certificates issued by the State from
which they migrated to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, but
if the certificates issued in their original States of which they are
permanent or ordinary residents were not good, the applications
should have been treated as if they had been made in the general
category and cases of the respondent candidates ought to have been
considered in the general category. Therefore, to the extent, the
applicants have attained necessary merit in the general list, they
deserve to be appointed."
71.4.4 The Supreme Court was not, therefore, seized with the issue
of the validity of an OBC certificate issued by the Revenue authorities
in Delhi. No finding in respect of such an exigency can be read, by
implication, into the judgment. The decisions of the Supreme Court
already cited supra also enunciate the settled proposition that a
judgment, even of the Supreme Court, is an authority only for what is
stated therein, and not for what may logically seem to follow from it.
71.4.5 We fail to understand, therefore, how the judgment is being
cited as a precedent in cases in which the OBC certificate is issued by
the Revenue authorities in Delhi, especially where the advertisement,
pursuant to which the candidate has applied, itself distinguishes
between certificates issued by Revenue authorities in Delhi and those
issued by Revenue authorities outside Delhi.
71.4.6 Veena, therefore, in our view, would not apply to a case in
which the OBC certificate is issued by the Revenue authorities in
Delhi - or, for that matter, in the state in which employment is being
sought.
71.5 GNCTD v Ravindra Singh32
71.5.1 Ms. Ahlawat has also relied on an unreported decision of the
Supreme Court in GNCTD v Ravindra Singh, specifically on the
following passages therefrom:
"3. Applications were invited for the post of Sub-Officer in
Delhi Fire Service - Group 'C' post. The age prescribed for the post
of Sub-Officer was not exceeding 27 years (relaxable in upper age
limit for SC/ST - 5 years). The candidates belonging to OBC were
entitled to three years age relaxation. The respondent herein
applied for the said post, however, he was not given the age
relaxation of three years. Therefore, the respondent approached the
Tribunal. It was the case of the respondent/original applicant that
though he was found to be more meritorious than the last candidate
selected from the OBC category, he has not been appointed. The
learned Tribunal dismissed the application. However, by the
impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the writ
petition by observing that in the advertisement, there was no
mention of age relaxation with respect to OBC candidates. The
High Court observed that the respondent, who belong to OBC
ought to have been given the benefit of three years age relaxation.
A review application was filed pointing out that as the respondent
belong to outside OBC candidate and, therefore, as per the
advertisement, he was not entitled to three years age relaxation.
The High Court has rejected the review application observing that
such a plea was not taken up earlier.
4. Having gone through the impugned Judgment and orders
passed by the High Court and even having gone through the
advertisement issued in the year 2009 which fell for consideration
before the High Court, it was specifically mentioned that a
candidate belonging to OBC is entitled to three years age
relaxation. In the note, it is also specifically provided that "OBC
candidates seeking benefit of reservation should submit OBC
Certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Government of
NCT of Delhi. All other OBC candidates with certificate issued
from outside Delhi will be considered for the unreserved category
only, if eligible otherwise". Therefore, OBC candidates belonging
to outside the Government of NCT of Delhi were considered in the
unreserved category.
32 Judgment dated 12 September 2022 in SLP (C) 12474-12475/2019
5. In that view of the matter, the respondent being OBC
outside the Government of NCT of Delhi and as the condition
mentioned in the advertisement was not under challenge, the
respondent was not entitled to the benefit of three years age
relaxation and his case was to be considered in the unreserved
category. Thereafter, when he was found to be over-age, it cannot
be said he was wrongly denied the appointment. When it was
pointed out by way of review application, the High Court has
refused to consider the review application. The High Court ought
to have considered the aforesaid aspect which goes to the root of
the matter.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove,
both the appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition as well as in the
Review Application are hereby quashed and set aside. "
71.5.2 Ravindra Singh, too, therefore, appears, like Veena, to have
been a case in which the OBC certificate produced by the candidate
was issued by the Revenue authorities outside Delhi. Ergo, it would
not apply to the present case.
72. To return, now, to the OBC certificate dated 6 February 2014
produced by the respondent, it is clear that it conforms to the
stipulations contained in Clause 6 of Advertisement 01/13. The
certificate has to be read as it is. It does not purport to have been
issued to the respondent merely because she is a migrant. It clearly
states that "Nisha, S/o/W/o/D/o Ashok Kumar, Resident of F-153,
Vijay Vihar Ph-II Sec-4, Rohini, Delhi belongs to the community JAT
which is recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC) as under", and
proceeds to refer to 4 Resolutions and two Notifications which so
recognize the community JAT as an OBC. The mere fact that it has
been issued on the basis of the OBC certificate issued to the
respondent's father in UP does not deviate from the earlier recitals in
the Certificate.
73. There is no reason, therefore, for the respondent not to be
entitled to the benefit of OBC reservation on the basis of the said
certificate.
Conclusion
74. We, therefore, find no reason to disagree with the Tribunal.
75. The impugned judgment dated 10 October 2023, passed by the
Tribunal, is, therefore, affirmed in its entirety.
76. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with no orders as to
costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
JULY 1, 2025
Aky/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
