Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 3202
DELHI HIGH COURT
Kailash Gambhir, Najmi Waziri, JJ.
Bal Kishan Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Resopndent
W.P. (C) 5643 of 2013
Decided On : 20-11-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Vijay Kinger, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a liberal approach in cases where minor lapses could be rectified before the date of final selection, especially when the candidate has qualified all the requisite tests.
Headnote:
OBC - Appointment Dispute - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 2010-ND-2 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the requirement for OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination, and the importance of adhering to the instructions and guidelines incorporated in the recruitment rules or advertisement. The court also highlighted the need for a liberal approach in cases where minor lapses could be rectified before the date of final selection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an OBC category candidate, challenged the rejection of his representation seeking appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organisation 2010 (CPO 2010) under the OBC category. He contended that he had secured higher marks than the last selected male candidate in the OBC category in BSF, CRPF, and SSB, but was denied appointment due to a deficiency in his OBC certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had appeared for the interview as an OBC candidate and had produced all the original documents, including the caste certificate. It noted that the petitioner's deficiency in submitting a latest OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate was not pointed out by the respondents during the interview or thereafter. The court emphasized the importance of a liberal approach in such cases and held that the petitioner should have been given a reminder to produce the required certificate.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of appointment to the petitioner in the OBC category due to a deficiency in his OBC certificate, despite securing higher marks than the last selected male candidate in the OBC category in BSF, CRPF, and SSB.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in cases where minor lapses could be rectified before the date of final selection, especially when the candidate has qualified all the requisite tests. It held that the petitioner, who had secured higher marks, should have been appointed in the OBC category.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the vacancy of Sub-Inspector in OBC male category against an existing vacancy of the year 2014, giving him notional seniority and fixing his pay notionally. The petitioner was entitled to pay and allowance only from the date he actually joins the CPOs, as per rules.
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order No. 7/2/2010-ND-2 dated 29.05.2012 whereby his representation seeking appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organisation 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPO 2010’) in Other Backward Classes (in short ‘OBC’) category has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner in Special Examination for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in CPOs, 2010 under the OBC category on the basis of his merit alongwith all consequential benefits of seniority and pay at par with his batch-mates.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category, he had applied to the post of Sub-Inspector in CPOs 2010, pursuant to the notice advertised by the Staff Selection Commission (in short ‘SSC’) in the Employment News/Rojgar Samachar dated 09.10.2010 for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in CPOs. Being an OBC category candidate, the petitioner was required to submit an OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate within three years of the specified closing date i.e., 02.11.2010. The petitioner took the written examination as an OBC candidate on 12.12.2010, he was declared successful in it and was issued a Call Letter dated 06.05.2011 for an interview which was held on 14.06.2011. At the time of his interview, the petitioner was required to bring all the documents including the caste certificate. It was made clear to the petitioner in the Call Letter for the interview that in case a candidate is found to be not fulfilling the educational qualifications or the age limit or any other eligibility criteria, then he would not be allowed to sit for the interview.
3. As per the petitioner, he had appeared for the interview on 14.06.2011 as an OBC candidate and had produced all the original documents including the caste certificate and only after scrutiny of the documents produced by him, was he allowed to participate in the interview.
4. The petitioner contends that on 12.10.2011 the respondents declared the final result of the Special Examination for Sub- Inspectors in CPOs 2010, but his name was not found in it although he had secured 206 marks after combining the marks scored by him in the written examination and in the interview, which is much above the marks of the last selected male candidate in the OBC category in BSF, CRPF and in SSB. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had submitted his latest OBC certificate dated 31.10.2011 as was issued in his favour by the Tehsildar, Bhiwani and this latest OBC certificate manifested that the petitioner continued to be under the OBC category and he does not belong to the creamy layer.
5. The petitioner’s grievance is that his case was wrongly considered by the respondents under the Unreserved Category (in short ‘UR category’) to deny him an appointment to the post of Sub- Inspector as he did not meet the cut off fixed for UR category in written examination Paper- I and II, which was 166.25 marks, while the aggregate marks secured by the petitioner in both these papers was 152.
6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically urged that the respondents cannot dispute the fact that the petitioner is not an OBC candidate as he had duly submitted his OBC certificate alongwith his application form and had produced the original of the same at the time of his interview. The learned counsel also submits that although the said OBC certificate, which was submitted by the petitioner was of the year 2003 and not a latest certificate as per the requirement of the respondents, it was the duty of the respondents to have pointed out the said deficiency on the part of the petitioner so as to afford him at least one opportunity to produce his most recent OBC certificate. The learned counsel also submits that in the OBC category the total marks secur
