Delhi High Court
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... vs Sunanda on 26 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 7293/2025
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat,
SC/DSSSB with Mr.Nitesh
Kumar Singh, Ms.Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms.Aliza Alam,
Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat &
Mr.Amitoj Chadha, Advs
versus
SUNANDA .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Ms.Divya
Aggarwal, Mr.Pradeep Kumar
& Ms.Anjali Bansal, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 32826/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 7293/2025 & CM APPL. 32825/2025
2. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated
24.09.2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, 'Tribunal'), in O.A. No.
967/2021, titled Sunanda v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board (DSSSB) & Ors., filed by the respondent herein, whereby the
Tribunal has passed the following directions:
"5. CONCLUSION :
5.1 In view of the aforesaid, we allow this OA.
The rejection of the candidature of the
applicant for the post in question is quashed
and set aside. Accordingly, the respondents
are directed to treat the candidature of the
applicant under "OBC" category and,
thereafter, offer her appointment letter to join,
if she is otherwise found eligible. However, the
applicant shall be placed below the last
selected candidate in her category. This
exercise shall be completed within a period of
two month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. Needless to say,
that the actual benefits shall accrue to the
applicant from the date of her joining."
3. The facts that give rise to the present petition are not in dispute.
The respondent had applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) under
Post Code 16/17 in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),
pursuant to an advertisement issued by the petitioners on 07.08.2017.
4. As she had applied for a post reserved for the Other Backward
Category candidate, the relevant terms of the advertisement,
prescribing the necessary certificate required for the same, are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"5. RESERVATION BENEFITS:
xxxxxx
(iii) Only OBC (Delhi) candidates will be
given the benefit of reservation/age relaxation
under OBC category. 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 certificate,
along with his/her caste certificate.
(iv) Only following two types of certificates
will be accepted as valid certificates for grant
or 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 or Delhi to
a family member of the concerned person who
had been residing in Delhi before
08/09/1993."
5. The respondent participated in the selection process whereafter,
by the result declared on 17.07.2020, she was placed in the pending
list of OBC category at Serial No. 14, and was asked to upload an
OBC (Delhi Certificate) before the cut-off date. The respondent
claims that she did not become aware of the result being published
and, therefore, could not upload her certificate. Thereafter, a
supplementary result, vide notice no. 1241, was issued by the
petitioners on 13.01.2021, this time placing the respondent in the
pending list of the OBC candidates at Serial No. 9. On this occasion,
the respondent uploaded the certificate, which appears at page 103
(Annexure 5 to this petition), along with another certificate, which
appears at page 104 of the paper book. Realizing that the certificate at
page 104 was not for OBC (Delhi Candidate), the respondent sought
to upload another certificate, which appears at page 102 of the paper
book, however, as by then the portal had closed, she sent the said
certificate by way of speed post.
6. Her candidature was, however, rejected by the petitioners on
the ground that she had uploaded a wrong certificate and, therefore,
was not eligible to be considered against the OBC reserved post.
7. The learned Tribunal, however, by the Impugned Order, has
observed that the petitioners should have considered the certificate
that was later sent by the respondent after realizing her earlier mistake,
as this would not change her status as an OBC candidate.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
certificate submitted post the cut-off date cannot be considered in the
selection process. In support, she places reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Sakshi Arha v. High Court of Rajasthan &
Ors., (2024) 2 SCC 671.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that even as per the certificate which was uploaded within the
cut-off date and appears at page 103 of the paper book, the
respondent's candidature for the OBC category could not have been
rejected by the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners should be
directed to consider the application of the respondent only on the basis
of the certificate that appears at page 103 of the paper book, and he
would not place reliance on the other certificates, that is, the ones
appearing at page 102 or page 104 of the paper book for the same.
10. Keeping in view the fact that the certificate which appears at
page 103 of the paper book was admittedly submitted within the cut-
off date by the respondent, we dispose of this petition by directing the
petitioners to consider the case of the respondent in terms of the said
certificate. We make it clear that in such consideration, the certificates
at pages 102 and 104 shall not be considered by the petitioners.
11. In case the said certificate does not meet the requirements as per
the advertisement, the petitioners, while rejecting the candidature of
the respondent, shall communicate the reasons thereof to the
respondent within a period of four weeks from today. It shall then be
open to the respondent to challenge the said decision in accordance
with law.
12. However, if the respondent is found eligible for being
considered against the OBC category, further process in terms of the
direction of the Impugned Order shall be undertaken by the petitioners
within the same period.
13. The appeal, along with the pending application, is disposed of
in the above terms and directions.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 26, 2025/rv/VS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
