SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Sunil Pooja - Appellant
Versus
Staff Selection Commission - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8201 of 2019
Decided On : 01-06-2022




Candidates belonging to reserved categories should not be disqualified for late submission of eligibility certificates when such certificates are valid on the date of skill tests.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 16 - Appointment to posts reserved for OBC candidates - Petitioner claimed OBC status but submitted invalid certificate - Tribunal dismissed application on grounds of certificate validity, leading to writ petition - Tribunal's dismissal flawed as Petitioner possessed valid certificate by skill test date. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 34)

(B) Reservation Policy - A candidate may submit required OBC certificate any time before final selection - Late submission does not automatically disqualify OBC candidates, ensuring compliance with reservation objectives. (Paras 23, 31)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner applied for the post of Data Entry Operator under the OBC category but was denied consideration due to the late submission of an OBC certificate dated 17.12.2012, which was deemed invalid according to the Respondent's criteria. The Tribunal upheld this denial, leading to the current writ petition. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The Petitioner had the requisite OBC certificate as of the date of the skill test and should have been considered for the post; the Respondent's refusal to accept the certificate on temporal grounds was unjustified. (Paras 34)

Issues: Whether late submission of the OBC certificate disqualifies a candidate from consideration for selection despite meeting other eligibility criteria? (Para 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that a candidate's OBC status should not be compromised due to procedural delays in certificate submission, maintaining that such candidates should be given fair consideration for posts reserved for their categories. (Paras 31, 34)

Result: Writ petition allowed; order of the Tribunal quashed; Respondents directed to consider Petitioner’s OBC status for appointment. (Para 34)

Table of Content
1. early application for obc certificate (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6)
2. petitioner's attempt to submit obc certificate (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. validity of obc certification timing (Para 7 , 8 , 24 , 25)
4. late certification should not disqualify (Para 21 , 22 , 30 , 33)
5. judgment favors petitioner obc status (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. In the present case, Petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 16.05.2019 in O.A. No.2426/2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') whereby her O.A. was dismissed.

2. Facts, in brief, in the present case are, that the Respondent herein issued Notification on 14.07.2012, inviting applications for selection of candidates to the post of Data Entry Operators (in short, "DEO"). Reservation was provided in favour of OBC candidates. The selection process consisted of a written examination and a skill test. The Petitioner while submitting her application claimed the status of OBC for the purpose of reservation. It is stated that a Certificate dated 08.06.2009 was also submitted supporting her stand that she belongs to the OBC category. It is not disputed that the Petitioner had successfully cleared the written test and had also undergone skill test/typing test. The objections raised by the Respondent with respect to the OBC Certificate was, that it is only such certificate, which is obtained within three years preceding the last date/cut-off date as per the Notification which would be valid. Since the OBC certificate was a few months prior to the cut-off date, which was 01.08.2012, the Petitioner was held to be disentitled from being considered under the OBC category.

3. There is no dispute that the Petitioner had cleared the written test and had obtained 150.5 marks in the written test, the cut-off marks for an OBC candidate in Delhi being 150. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner had applied under the OBC category. Having cleared the written test, the Petitioner was asked to appear for the Data Entry Speed Test and Typing Test on the computer for the post of DEO vide letter dated 11.02.2013 issued by the Respondent for 03.03.2013.

4. Mr. Anil Singal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner had applied for the post of DEO under OBC category and had stated so in her application though she had not submitted the certificate along with the application. Subsequently, after having successfully cleared the written test, the Petitioner appeared for the Data Entry Speed Test and Typing Test on the computer on 17.03.2013. At the time of appearing for the Speed Test/Typing Test, the Petitioner had attempted to submit an OBC Certificate dated 17.12.2012 in terms of Clause (iii) of the Call Letter dated 11.02.2013 issued by the Respondent. Clause 1 (a)(iii) is extracted below :

    "You should furnish the relevant OBC certificate in the format prescribed for Central Government jobs, as per Annexure VII of the notice, issued by the Competent Authority at the time of Skill Test. The certificate must be dated on or before the date of skill test"

5. He further submits that though the Petitioner had carried the OBC Certificate dated 17.12.2002 on the date of skill test, i.e. 17.03.2013, the Respondents refused to accept the same. The name of the Petitioner did not figure in the final list of the successful candidates.

6. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal vide O.A. No.2426/2013 seeking to quash and set aside the final result dated 22.05.2013 as well as a direction to the Respondent to consider the application under OBC category and recommend her name for the post of Data Entry Operator with all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of pay from the date her junior in merit was so appointed.

7. The Tribunal did not agree with the contentions raised by the Petitioner on the basis that the Notification for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top