Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board - Appellant
Versus
Rahul Dabas - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8777 of 2021 and CM Nos. 27329-30 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2021
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Administrative law - Discretion of administrative bodies - The court affirmed that the Tribunal's discretion can only be interfered with if it is unreasonable or unfair. (Paras 4.1-5.1)
Facts of the case:
The case involved a petition against the Tribunal's order directing the petitioners to verify the OBC status of the respondent, who did not specify his status in the OMR sheet.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal acted within its discretion, and the petitioners are to verify the respondent's claims regarding his OBC status.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondent's consideration for the post despite inaccuracies in the OMR sheet regarding his OBC status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in application do not negate the right to be considered for the post if eligibility is proven.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
CM No. 27330/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 8777/2021 and CM No. 27329/2021[Application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 17.06.2021]
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.06.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2107/2016.
3. The short issue involved in the present matter, according to Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, is: whether the Tribunal could have asked the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent [i.e., the original applicant] for appointment to the subject post, when he had himself not indicated in the OMR sheet that he fell in the category of OBC "from Delhi"?
4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that, the Tribunal was of the view that, the aforementioned aspect [that is, the category claimed by the candidate], forms material part of the verification, which is to take place, only when the concerned candidate appears physically with his credentials.
4.1. Pertinently, the Tribunal has not directed the petitioners to consider the respondent for appointment to the subject post, even if he failed to establish that he was an OBC "from Delhi".
4.2. In other words, the Tribunal, in effect, has taken the view that, merely, because the respondent had failed to correctly indicate in the OMR sheet that he is an OBC "from Delhi", the petitioners cannot disentitle him from being considered for the subject post, if he was otherwise eligible, and able to establish, based on relevant documents, that he was an OBC "from Delhi".
5. Therefore, given the foregoing, we are of the view that, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion based on eminently reasonable and fair grounds
5.1. Via the impugned order, the petitioners have only been directed to verify the credentials of the respondent as to whether or not he is an OBC "from Delhi", as claimed by him. This will, obviously, be subject to the petitioner fulfilling other eligibility criteria stipulated qua appointment to the subject post.
6. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. Consequently, the pending application shall also stand closed.
