Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 2079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Priyanka Rani - Appellant
Versus
Government of India - Respondent
LPA 181 of 2022 and C.M. Nos. 12301 of 2022 & 12303 of 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Rajinder Pal Singh and Sahil Goel, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Anand Varma and Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocates for respondent/AIIMS.
R.K. Yadav, Senior Govt. Counsel with Mahesh Pal, Head Clerk for respondent/Dr. R.M.L. Hospital.

The judgment established the principle that a person's OBC status is by birth and not by acquisition at a later stage, and certificates are an affirmation of existing status. It emphasized the importance of addressing social and economic inequality through reservations for OBC candidates and the need to provide equal opportunities in public employment.

Headnote:
OBC - Nursing Officer Appointment - Office Memorandum No. 36036/2/2013-Estt.(Res) dated 30.05.2014, Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2016 - The court discussed the requirement for OBC (NCL) certificates, the validity period, and the obligation of candidates to obtain and submit the certificates. The court highlighted the importance of equality of opportunity in public employment and the need to address social and economic inequality through reservations for OBC candidates. The court emphasized that a person's OBC status is by birth and not by acquisition at a later stage, and certificates are an affirmation of existing status. The judgment set aside the rejection of the Appellant's candidature and directed the authorities to treat her as an OBC (NCL) Category candidate for appointment as a Nursing Officer.
Fact of the Case:

The Appellant, an OBC (NCL) candidate, applied for the post of Nursing Officer and submitted her OBC (NCL) certificate. The Respondents rejected her candidature citing discrepancies in the certificate's issuance date. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the Appellant failed to submit the certificate within the stipulated timeline. The Appellant argued that she had submitted valid certificates and that the rejection violated the principle of equality of opportunity in public employment.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Appellant had submitted valid OBC (NCL) certificates and was a member of the OBC (NCL) Category while appearing in the examination and as on the date of the judgment. The rejection of her candidature was set aside, and the Respondents were directed to treat her as an OBC (NCL) Category candidate for appointment as a Nursing Officer.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity and submission of OBC (NCL) certificates, the obligation of candidates to obtain and submit the certificates, and the violation of the principle of equality of opportunity in public employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a person's OBC status is by birth and not by acquisition at a later stage, and certificates are an affirmation of existing status. The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing social and economic inequality through reservations for OBC candidates and the need to provide equal opportunities in public employment.
Final Decision: The Impugned Office Memorandum and the Impugned Order were set aside, and the Respondents were directed to treat the Appellant as an OBC (NCL) Category candidate for appointment as a Nursing Officer. The Appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority from the date of appointment of identical OBC (NCL) Category candidates, but not to back wages.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal ("LPA") has been preferred by the Appellant under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C.) No. 2614/2022 ("Impugned Order"). Vide the Impugned Order, the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant herein, seeking appointment to the post of `Nursing Officer' has been dismissed.

2. The Appellant through the present Appeal has prayed for setting aside the Impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.02.2022, thereby allowing the present LPA. The Appellant has also prayed for accepting her Other Backward Castes ("OBC") Non-Creamy Layer ("NCL") Certificate as valid for the purposes of recruitment, directing the Respondents to issue an appointment and joining letter to the post of Nursing Officer and to quash the Office Memorandum dated 11.01.2022 issued by the Respondents, by which her name was included in the list of rejected candidates.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 had issued a Recruitment Notice No. 1/2019 for a large number of vacancies/posts in the capacity of a `Nursing Officer'. As per Clause 9 of the Recruitment Notice, it was stated that the candidates applying under OBC Category are under an obligation to provide a caste certificate as per format provided by the Department of Personnel and Training ("DoP&T") vide Office Memorandum No. 36036/2/2013-Estt.(Res) dated 30.05.2014 and the caste certificate should be issued not earlier than a year from the last date of online registration.

4. The scheme of examination was made available vide Notice No. 72/2019 dated 23.08.2019 and applications were to be submitted from 01.08.2019 to 21.08.2019. The Appellant had applied for the post of Nursing Officer under the category of OBC (NCL). The Appellant was allotted Roll No. 303272 vide online registration and she appeared in an online examination which took place on 15.09.2019. The result was declared on 28.09.2019 and the Appellant obtained 119 marks, bearing 1138 rank.

5. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 informed the Appellant vide email communication dated 19.08.2021 that the second round of recruitments/document verification would be carried out between 06.09.2021 and 17.09.2021. Pursuant to the E-mail dated 19.08.2021, the Appellant on 13.09.2021 submitted her OBC (NCL) caste certificate dated 12.09.2015 bearing Certificate No. 90500000020586 and Certificate No. THE/SLP/2020/156 dated 21.08.2020 in the prescribed format along with other requisite documents, as part of the document verification process. The Appellant on 07.12.2021 also got her OBC (NCL) certificate renewed by the concerned Magistrate bearing F. No. Non-Creamy/The/SLP/2021/744. However, on 24.12.2021, the Appellant received a communication bearing F.No. 5-80/2019/RMLH/NS/5955 from Deputy Director (Admn.) vide email, wherein it was stated that certain discrepancies have been observed in the OBC (NCL) category certificate submitted by the Appellant upon scrutiny of her documents and she was being granted a final opportunity to furnish a certificate in compliance with the prescribed format and standards latest by 31.12.2021, failing which her candidature will be treated as rejected/unreserved.

6. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 on the same date i.e. 24.12.2021 issued an `Important Notice' F. No. 5-80/2019/RMLH/NS/5956. Referring to paragraph 1(b) of DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2016, the `Important Notice' stated that OBC(NCL) Certificates issued during any month of the financial year would be valid for appointments during that year and that OBC candidates are required to furnish their OBC (NCL) certificate in the format provided by DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 30.05.2014. Further, the OBC (NCL) certificate should be issued between 01.04.2018 and 31.03.2020, inclusive of both dates, thereby changing the requirements of Paragraph 9 of the Recruit