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

2009 Supreme(SC) 999

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
Union of India & Others
Versus
Dalbir Singh & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3409 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19321 of 2005)
Decided on : 08-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :B. Datta, A.S.G., S. Wasim Qadri, B.K. Prasad, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Shekhar Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Mukesh Verma, M.R. Shamshad, Yash Pal Dhingra, Vivek Vishnoi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When a candidate applies only under reserved category, he cannot be considered under general category.

Headnote:Service law – Appointment – Respondent applying under OBC category – At no point of time requesting to be considered in general category – OBC certificate found defective – Not considered for appointment in OBC category – Rightly so – Tribunal erred in directing appellants to consider respondent’s claim for appointment in general category. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants advertised for selection to 20 vacant posts of Mazdoor both in general and reserved category.

       Respondent No. 1 applied for selection in the reserved (OBC) category and had annexed his OBC certificate dated 4.5.1997.

       A separate Board Proceedings was prepared for the candidates who had claimed concession on the basis of OBC certificate and name of the respondent No. 1 was also in the said proceedings.

       The authenticity of the said document was sought from the issuing authority who intimated that the said certificate was not issued by their office.

       The respondent No.1 then produced another certificate issued by SDO(C), Ambala in which a new address was given and the respondent No.1 was shown to be in OBC category. In view of this discrepancy in the caste certificate produced, the candidature of respondent No.1 came to be rejected by the appellants and, accordingly, no letter of appointment was issued to respondent No. 1.

       The respondent filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, seeking a direction that he be provided employment either by including his name in the list of candidates prepared for general category and, in the alternative, to direct the respondents therein to accept the OBC certificate issued by SDO(C), Ambala dated 14.8.2000.

       The Administrative Tribunal while accepting the assertion made by the appellants regarding the non-suitability of the certificates furnished by the respondent still directed the appellants to issue letter of appointment to the respondent by considering his candidature in the general category as he had scored more marks then one of the candidate in the general category.

       The appellants’ writ petition was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellants rightly rejected respondent’s candidature.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The respondent applied for selection in the reserved (OBC) category and did not request to be considered in the general category (!) . - The OBC certificate provided by the respondent was found to be defective and not issued by the stated authority (!) . - The appellants rejected the respondent's candidature due to discrepancies in the caste certificate (!) . - The court held that when a candidate applies only under a reserved category, he cannot be considered under the general category (!) . - The Administrative Tribunal erred in directing the appellants to consider the respondent's claim for appointment in the general category (!) . - The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside (!) .

What is the effect when a candidate applies only under a reserved category and fails to request consideration under the general category?


Judgment :-

H.L. Dattu, J.

Leave granted.

1) This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Civil Writ Petition No. 6481 - CAT of 2005 dated April 25, 2005, affirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 86-HR of 2003 dated May 22, 2004.

2) The short question is, whether the Administrative Tribunal is justified in directing the appellants to appoint Respondent No. 1 as a selected candidate in the general category even though he had not applied under that category.

3) The appellants advertised in the News Paper for selection to 20 vacant posts of Mazdoor both in general and reserved category. Respondent No. 1 applied for selection in the reserved (OBC) category and had annexed his OBC certificate dated 4.5.1997. A separate Board Proceedings was prepared for the candidates who had claimed concession on the basis of OBC certificate and name of the respondent No. 1 was also in the said proceedings. Since the permanent address furnished in the application was different and the OBC certificate furnished was from the different State; the authenticity of the said document was sought from the issuing authority. It was intimated by SDO (C), Ambala, vide their letter dated 11.7.2000 that the said certificate was not issued by their office. The same was informed to respondent No.1, and thereafter, he produced another certificate dated 14.8.2000 issued by SDO(C), Ambala in which a new address was given and the respondent No.1 was shown to be in OBC category on account of his being of the `Saini caste and later on it was found that `Saini caste was not in the OBC category in Punjab State. In view of this discrepancy in the caste certificate produced, the candidature of respondent No.1 came to be rejected by the appellants and, accordingly, no letter of appointment was issued to respondent No. 1.

4) Aggrieved by the action of the appellants, contesting respondent filed O.A. No. 86 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, seeking a direction that he be provided employment for the post of Mazdoor with all consequential benefits either by including his name in the list of candidates prepared for general category and, in the alternative, to direct the respondents therein to accept the OBC certificate issued by SDO(C), Ambala dated 14.8.2000.

5) The appellants in their written objections while traversing all the assertions and allegations made by the applicant, had stated that separate Board Proceedings had been prepared for candidates who had claimed concessions on the basis of OBC category and the applicant having opted to be considered under the OBC category, he was expected to produce the genuine certificate issued by the competent authority. They had also stated that, to fill up the vacancies of Mazdoors, an advertisement had been issued separately for general and OBC categories and pursuant to such advertisement, the applicant had applied against OBC category and not under general category and, therefore, his name was not considered under general category.

6) The Administrative Tribunal while accepting the assertion made by the appellants regarding the non-suitability of the certificates furnished by the respondent herein, still directed the appellants to issue letter of appointment to the respondent by considering his candidature in the general category as he had scored more marks then one of the candidate in the general category.

7) Against this decision, the appellants had carried the matter by way of writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide its order dated 28.4.2005 had dismissed the writ petition.

8) The substantial point that requires consideration in the appeal is, whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to give appointment to respondent No.1 under general category on the basis of marks ob



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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top