The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial discipline, the binding effect of earlier judgments, and the need for an authoritative pronouncement on conflicting legal issues.

ORDER :

1. This batch of Letters Patent Appeals has been heard in some detail.

2. As noticed in the order dated 22nd February 2023, the appellant in LPA No. 64 of 2020 put forth a submission before the writ Court that she has secured maximum marks in her category but her candidature was rejected on the ground that the caste certificate produced by her was not in the proper format.

3. The other appellants have also raised a similar contention that in spite of all of them having secured marks more than cut-off marks in their respective caste category, they are not selected - for a similar reason.

4. In LPA No. 64 of 2020, the appellant has taken an additional plea that she was in possession of a caste certificate issued in the proper format but mistakenly she has entered details of another caste certificate which was also issued to her but was not in the proper format, as required under Clause 9 (gha) of the Advertisement No. 02 of 2016.

5. Some of the appellants in other Letters Patent Appeals have also pleaded somewhat a similar situation that: (i) may be they were not in possession of the caste certificate in proper format as on the last date for making the application, they had produced the required caste certificate at the time of verification of the documents, (ii) some of them were permitted to appear for the interview in their caste category, or (iii) their certificates were accepted at the time of verification of the documents.

6. Along with the other learned counsels, Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel who appears for some of the appellants has submitted that Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 which lays down the law on the subject has been ignored by the writ Court. The learned counsel has brought to our attention the order dated 24th January 2020 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14948 of 2016 [Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others] which is the order making reference to a larger Bench of three-Judges for re-consideration of Ram Kumar Gijroya.

7. In the order dated 24th January 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“We have heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the record including the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). In the case of Ms. Pushpa (supra), which was referred to in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) though the applicant had moved an application much prior to the date of the advertisement, the office of the competent authority took considerable time to make the required OBC certificate available. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the applicant cannot be made to suffer for lapse on part of the SDM office in issuing the OBC certificate.

In the case of Gaurav Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2017 All. 116, a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court disagreed with the view expressed in the case of Ms. Pushpa (supra) and held that even claims made under OBC category are to be made before the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 58, this Court has held that eligibility criteria/conditions are to be considered on the last date of receipt of applications.

.............................

In practice, for every advertisement, there are such belated claims claiming reservation, though the candidates did not submit certificate from the competent authority, before the cut-off date. In view of the general importance of the question, we are of the view that the issue which fell for consideration in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) requires to be considered by a larger Bench of three-Judges.”

8. The aforesaid reference has been answered by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karn Singh Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC Online SC 1341, h