Post-cut-off OBC certificate affirming pre-existing status, obtained per board directions, validates candidature despite cut-off rule.

ORDER(Oral)

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

This OA has been filed seeking the following relief:-

“a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present petition before their lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter.

(b) Quash and setting aside the order dt. 24.07.23 (Annexure A/1) withdrawing the offer of appointment and canceling the candidature of the applicant for the post of TGT Hindi Male (Post Code 34/21) after declaring the same is as deliberate, biased, perverse illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, mechanical and not sustainable in the eyes of law as the issue herein has already been settled by the Hon’ble Tribunal on dt. 28.03.19 in OA No. 2986/16 titled as Anjana Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi further upheld upto Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(d) Allowing the OA of the applicant with all other consequential benefits and costs.

(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant,states that the applicant was an aspirant for the post of TGT (Hindi) Male - Post Code 34/21. The applicant had applied for the aforesaid post in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the DSSSB for appointment under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD under the OBC category. He completed the said recruitment process and was allotted Roll No. 112703400416. After the completion of the selection process, he was issued a provisional offer of appointment dated 14.10.2022, with a direction to submit his acceptance against the said order and also for document verification. During verification of documents, the respondents found that the OBC certificate was deficient on certain grounds. As such the respondents issued a Deficiency Notice dated 10.06.2022 to the applicant directing him to upload the valid Delhi OBC certificate issued before the cut-off date. The applicant as per the instructions, uploaded the certificates the respondents were not satisfied and issued another deficiency certificate dated 06.07.2022. This time directing him to upload a valid OBC certificate from Delhi issued before cut-off date instead of the OBC certificate issued from Uttar Pradesh. This time applicant approached the competent authority and got a fresh OBC certificate issued in lieu of the earlier one and uploaded the same.

3. Once again the respondents vide their deficiency memo dated 18.10.2022 were not satisfied with the documents uploaded by the applicant and directed the applicant to upload the NCL creamy certificate issued prior to the cut off date and also the OBC certificate issued prior to the cut off date and the certificate has to be issued on the basis of other state OBC certificate of father.

4. It would be pertinent to note that the third memo dated 18.10.22 was issued after the provisional offer of appointment had been issued to the applicant dated 13.10.2022.

5. Be that as it may, the applicant has approached the competent authority which issued the valid OBC certificate dated 17.03.2023, in lieu of theearlier certificate granted to him on the basis of his father’s certificate.

The respondents have once again cancelled the candidature of the applicant after considering all the documents submitted by applicant, vide impugned order dated 24.07.2023, which is the boneof contention in the present OA.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant at all stages of the selection has been providing the respondents with the requisite documents but the respondents for one reason or another have been issuing notices calling the applicant to fulfil certain deficienc