The central legal point established in the judgment is that the OBC certificate issued after the closing date of receipt of application forms can be considered, and the candidate fulfilled the eligibility conditions for the post.

1. Petitioner assails the order dated 29.11.2007, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 449/2007 has set aside order dated 19.10.2006, passed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, whereby the candidature of respondent for post of “Domestic Science teacher” was cancelled. The ground of cancellation was that OBC certificate dated 05.02.2005 submitted by her had been issued by the SDM, Seelampur after the closure of date of submission of application form.

2. The facts as alleged in the petition are as under :

On 30.04.2004, petitioner, i.e. Government of NCT of Delhi had advertised certain vacancies for Group ‘B’ posts through Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, hereinafter referred to as DSSSB. Respondent applied for the post of “Domestic Teacher” under the category of OBC candidate on 18.05.2004. The last date of receipt of application forms was 24.05.2004. On 28.11.2004, the examination for the said post was held. Petitioners vide letter dated 24.01.2005 requested respondent to furnish attested copies of relevant documents in support of her claim for reserved seats and attested copies of her academic qualification, certificates starting from Matriculation latest by 31.01.2005. Respondent vide her letter dated 31.01.2005 sent attested copies of academic qualification certificates. In respect of OBC certificate she informed that the same has been misplaced and she be granted 15 days time for producing the same. Thereafter, respondent submitted OBC certificate dated 05.02.2005 issued by SDM, Seelampur, Delhi to DSSSB vide her letter dated 07.02.2005. The dossier of respondent containing caste certificate was sent by DSSSB to Education department vide their letter dated 09.03.2006. Education department issued ‘Offer of Appointment’ on 28.05.2006 to respondent giving her benefit of reservation/age.

3. It is alleged that during the course of scrutiny of documents/certificates submitted in the office of petitioner for verification, it was found that OBC certificate No. OBC/04/42/2749/31/1/2005/4620 dated 05.02.2005 was issued by SDM, Seelampur, Delhi after the closing date of submission of application form, i.e. 24.05.2004. Therefore the petitioner acting in terms of G.I., Department of Personnel and Training OM No. 36033/4/97-Estt.(Res.), dated 25.07.2003 cancelled the candidature of the respondent vide letter dated 19.10.2006 on the aforesaid ground.

Aggrieved with the same, respondent filed OA No. 449/2007 before the Tribunal which was allowed vide impugned order dated 19.11.2007. The aforesaid impugned order is challenged by petitioner by filing the present petition.

4. The case of the respondent is that she fulfilled all the eligibility conditions for the post of “Domestic Science Teacher”. It is contended that she fell under the category of OBC even prior to advertisement in question and continued thereafter. It is alleged that the respondent had also annexed an OBC certificate issued by Tehsildar Baraut, District Bagpat, UP dated 13.03.2001 alongwith the application form much before the closing date, i.e. on 18.05.2004. It is contended that acknowledgement slip issued to her also shows that her application form was received under the OBC category. It is also contended that in any event no cut-off date was mentioned in the advertisement for submission of OBC certificate. It is further contended that OBC certificate dated 05.02.2005 was furnished on 07.02.2005 as the same was demanded by petitioner after closing date vide their letter dated 24.01.2005.

5. Counsel for petitioner relying upon G.I., Deptt. of Personnel & Training, O.M. No. 36033/4/97-Estt. (Res.), dated 25.07.2003 has submitted that since the OBC certificate dated 05.02.2005 was issued subsequent to the date of closing of receipt of application forms, petitioners cancelled the candidature of respondent. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Clause 3 of the aforesaid OM. It is contended that im