IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Rakesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Staff Selection Commissioner and Another - Respondents
CWP No. 2616 of 2016
Decided On : 15-01-2024
OBC Category - Rejection of OBC claim - Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India - 2016 (4) SCC 754, SLP (C) No. 14948 of 2016 - The petitioner's OBC claim was rejected due to the format of the OBC Certificate. The court referred to judgments in Ram Kumar Gijroya Versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another; 2016 (4) SCC 754 and Karan Singh Yadav Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (SLP (C) No. 14948 of 2016) which held that candidature cannot be cancelled due to late submission of OBC Certificate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, applied for a post in the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) but his OBC claim was rejected due to the format of the OBC Certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's OBC claim based on the format of the OBC Certificate was not sustainable in light of relevant judgments.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's OBC claim due to the format of the OBC Certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Ram Kumar Gijroya Versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another; 2016 (4) SCC 754 and Karan Singh Yadav Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (SLP (C) No. 14948 of 2016) to establish that candidature cannot be cancelled due to late submission of OBC Certificate.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to re-consider the petitioner's case, subject to availability of post and physical fitness, within 6 months.
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure P-8) whereby claim of the petitioner to consider him in OBC category has been rejected.
2. The petitioner belongs to OBC category and pursuant to an advertisement dated 05.02.2011 applied for post of Constable (GD) in Indo Tibetan Border Police (for short 'ITBP'). A written examination was conducted on 01.05.2011. The petitioner participated in said written examination and cleared the same. The petitioner alongwith application form filed OBC Certificate, however, it was not in the format prescribed by respondent. The petitioner secured OBC Certificate dated 01.08.2011 in prescribed format, however, at the time of scrutiny of documents, the Certificate dated 01.08.2011 was not considered whereas Certificate filed at the time of application was taken care of. As OBC Certificate filed by petitioner was not in the prescribed format, the petitioner was not considered under OBC category, thus, petitioner submitted an undertaking to the effect that he may be considered under General category. The petitioner could not compete with the candidates of General category, accordingly, candidature of the petitioner was rejected under OBC category as well as General Category. The petitioner preferred CWP No.135 of 2015 before this Court seeking directions to respondent to consider him under OBC category. The said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2015 with a direction to respondent to pass speaking order. The respondent vide impugned order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure P-8) has rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was bound to submit OBC Certificate in the prescribed format which he failed and he has further filed undertaking dated 09.11.2011 at the time of document verification to the effect that he may be considered in General category, thus, claim of the petitioner is not sustainable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the sole ground that OBC Certificate was not submitted in the prescribed format alongwith the application. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya Versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another; 2016 (4) SCC 754 and Karan Singh Yadav Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (SLP (C) No. 14948 of 2016).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner was duty bound to furnish OBC Certificate in the prescribed format before the last date meant for filing application and he has further furnished undertaking at the time of scrutiny of documents, thus, claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able assistance of learned counsels perused the record.
6. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Karan Singh Yadav (supra) has adverted with similar question. In the said case, the appellant submitted OBC Certificate after cut off date and his candidature was rejected. The Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) disposed of the petition.
7. In Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), a two Judge Bench of Supreme Court while dealing with question of submission of OBC Certificate at a later stage has held that candidature cannot be cancelled due to late submission of OBC Certificate. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as :
xx xxxx xxx
13. After hearing both the parties at length and perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we are o
Candidature cannot be cancelled due to late submission of OBC Certificate.
Delayed submission of OBC certificate shall not disentitle a candidate from consideration for employment under the OBC category, emphasizing the purpose of the certificate and the objective of reserv....
Selected reserved category candidate qualifying written exam and producing valid category certificate at document verification cannot be denied appointment for expired certificate at application cut-....
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 import....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of the advertisement did not stipulate that the Caste Certificate and the Domicile Certificate had to be from the same regi....
OBC status exists by birth; post-cut-off caste certificate merely affirms pre-existing fact and cannot disqualify eligible candidate for reservation benefits, particularly lifelong residents.
A caste certificate's format does not negate its validity if it proves eligibility for OBC status, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach in interpreting reservation laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for candidates to possess valid OBC-NCL certificates within the specified timelines as per the advertisement and subsequent notice ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.