Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
Govt. NCT of Delhi and Another – Appellants
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Yadav – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10007 of 2018
Decided On : 08-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
N.K. Singh, Avnish Ahlawat, Raman Duggal, Qjuysa Joshi, A.K. Panwar, Akshay Choudhary.
The main legal point established is the importance of considering the bona fide nature of a mistake in a recruitment process, the timely representations made by the candidate, and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in determining relief.
Headnote:
OBC Category - Recruitment Dispute - [Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19], [Constitution of India - Article 14, Article 16], [Delhi Transport Department Act, 1950 - Section 3] - The court discussed the dispute regarding the respondent's category in a recruitment process for the post of Head Constable in the Transport Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi. The key legal provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, Constitution of India, and Delhi Transport Department Act were considered in interpreting the respondent's eligibility and the obligation of the petitioners to correct the category mistake. The court emphasized the bona fide nature of the mistake, the timely representations made by the respondent, and distinguished the case from previous decisions involving different factual positions.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, belonging to the OBC category, applied for the post of Head Constable in the Transport Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi as a General category candidate due to a mistake in the application form. Despite possessing a valid OBC certificate, he was not considered as an OBC candidate and was not declared successful.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's mistake in applying as a General category candidate was bona fide, and he made timely representations to correct the error. The court distinguished the case from previous decisions and emphasized the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: The issues involved the respondent's category in the recruitment process, the validity of his representations, and the obligation of the petitioners to correct the category mistake.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's mistake was not deliberate, and he had promptly sought correction. The court distinguished the case from previous decisions based on different factual positions and peculiar circumstances.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court declined to interfere with the impugned order, granting relief to the respondent based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi assails the order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal) in OA No. 2961/2016.
2. The Tribunal had allowed the said OA preferred by the respondent and quashed the order dated 01.08.2016. By the order dated 01.08.2016, the petitioners had declared the result for the recruitment held for the post of Head Constable in Transport Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and the respondent was not declared as successful, even though, he secured more marks in the examination held by the petitioners, than the last selected OBC category candidate. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to treat the respondent as an OBC candidate, and consider his candidature for the post of Head Constable under post code 43/13, if he was found otherwise eligible on all other parameters, as per law.
3. In response to the advertisement issued by the petitioners for recruiting Head Constables in Transport Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi under post code 43/13, the respondent made his application. Admittedly, he declared in the application form that he belongs to the General category/Unreserved category, even though, he belongs to OBC category and he also possessed the OBC certificate dated 19.02.2013, which had been issued prior to cut-off date.
4. The respondent was issued the admit card for the conduct of the written examination, wherein, his category was shown as "Unreserved." Upon noticing the same, the respondent made a representation that due to some technical mistake, he applied as a General category candidate instead of OBC category candidate. He has stated that he is in possession of OBC certificate dated 19.02.2013. He requested for change of his category from General to OBC. He did not receive any response to his representation. He was shortlisted by the petitioners in the category of Unreserved candidates with 159 marks. He again sent a representation on 16.06.2016 for change of his category to OBC, but to no avail. The petitioners then declared final result on 01.08.2016 in which the respondent was shown as not selected, by treating him as an Unreserved category candidate. The respondent then approached the Tribunal with the grievance that the last selected OBC category candidate had secured 155.25 marks, whereas, he secured 159 marks and that, his candidature should have been considered as an OBC category candidate and he should have been declared successful.
5. The Tribunal has allowed the OA on the premise that since there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent is, indeed, an OBC category candidate, and he was in possession of a valid OBC certificate issued prior to cut-off date, he should not have been made to suffer on account of a bona-fide mistake committed by him in filling-up the form.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this court has rejected the claim of the applicants placed in similar situation in the cases of Neeti Nayyar vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, WP (C) No. 12332/2018 decided on 19.11.2018 and Pooja Sehrawat vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, WP (C) No. 12563/2018 decided on 26.11.2018. He further submits that in Pooja Sehrawat (supra), this court has taken note of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Union Public Service Commission and Another vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, WP (C) No. 10058/2009 decided on 25.01.2010, wherein, the view has been taken - that a candidate who does not provide the requisite degree/certificate along with the application form, cannot seek consideration of his application on the premise that he was not in possession of the degree on the relevant date, and he was able to obtain the same after the cut-off date.
7. We have perused the impugned order; the record placed before us, considered and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the two decisions of this court in Neeti Nayyar (supra) and Poo
