Lal Singh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi

A.K. Bishnoi, J

The applicant in response to an advertisement issued by the respondents applied for Post Code-68/12 in the year 2012. Thereafter, written examination was conducted on 16.11.2014 in which the applicant participated. He also qualified in the typing test and in the result notice No.389 dated 11.05.2016, a list of provisionally selected candidates was issued in which he was declared selected in the OBC category.

However, the applicant was not given an appointment to the post despite several representations and was also not informed about the status of his candidature. Thereafter on moving an application under the RTI, he was informed vide letter dated 01.11.2017 that his application has been withheld for producing OBC (Delhi Certificate) issued prior to cut off date for getting benefits for the post reserved for OBC under Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

2.1 The applicant claims that he had submitted an OBC certificate (Annexure A-2) dated 27.8.2010 certifying that he belongs to JAT community which is recognised as OBC. This certificate was issued on the basis of OBC Certificate issued to Shri Parhlad father of the applicant from District Aligarh, U.P. The applicant has also submitted several other documents to further his claim of being an OBC candidate.

2.2 In view of the above, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"a) Direct the respondents to declare the final result of the applicant under the OBC category, forthwith;

b) Accord all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits at par with his batch mates;

c) Award costs of the proceedings; and

d) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon‟ble Tribunal interests may deem fit and proper in the of justice in favour of the applicant".

In the counter affidavit, Respondent No.2 DSSSB while not denying the facts relating to conduct of examination and the position of the applicant, has submitted that with reference to Services Department letter dated 27.07.2017 read with letter dated 28.07.2016, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has decided to accept the following two types of certificates as valid certificates for grant of benefit of reservation to OBCs in civil posts under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi:

"1) OBC certificate (Delhi) issued by the Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi, on the basis of any old certificate issued to any member of individual‟s family from GNCT of Delhi.

2) OBC certificate issued by a Competent Authority outside Delhi to a person belonging to a community duly notified as OBC by GNCT of Delhi. This certificate should have mandatorily been issued on the basis of OBC certificate issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi to any family member of the concerned person who had been residing in Delhi before 08.09.1993".

They have further submitted that since the applicant has submitted the OBC (Migrated from UP) certificate instead of OBC (Delhi) certificate, his dossier is withheld for producing OBC (Delhi) certificate.

Respondent No.4, Deputy Commissioner (West District) has also filed a counter reply in which it has been submitted that the OBC certificate dated 27.8.2010 (referred above) was issued by the answering respondent to Sri Lal Singh s/o Prahlad on the basis of local inquiry done of his father Sri Prahlad r/o village Nagariya Darkana, Tehsil Khor, District Aligarh, U.P. who belongs to „JAT‟ caste. It has also been mentioned that the record of OBC certificate issued in the year 2010 is not available being old record. It is further mentioned that the concerned SDM had on 01.11.2018 communicated that if Shri Lal Singh the applicant wants the OBC certificate from Delhi, he may produce the residence proof of Delhi prior to 08.09.1993.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents in which they dwelt at length upon the pleadings advanced in the OA.

Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following judgments:-

"i) Ms. Nasreen Bano vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [OA No. 3256/2014] decided on 15.05.2018;

ii) Ms. Nikhat Parveen vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [OA No.3257/2014] decided on 15.05.2018".

We have gone through the pleadings on record and have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for two sides.

As far as the contention of the respondent No. 2 that only such certificates are valid as are covered by Services Department letter dated 27.07.2017 read with letter dated 28.07.2016 is concerned it does not seem that it can be validly applied to the case of the applicant as in his case, as mentioned in the counter reply itself, the final result was declared on 11.05.2016. Thus the selection process was clearly over before the issuance of abovementioned letters dated 27.07.2017 and 28.07.2016. In the judgements in Ms. Nasreen Bano (supra) and Ms. Nikhat Parveen (supra) there is mention of Instructions No.12011/11/94-BCC(C) dated 08.04.1994, which are quoted as follows:-

"In continuation of the DOPT‟s letter of 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 15th November, 1993, I am directed to say that it has been represented to this Department that persons belonging to OBCs who have migrated from one State to another for the purpose of employment, education, etc. experience great difficulty in obtaining caste certificates from the State from which they have migrated. In order to remove this difficulty, it has been decided that the prescribed authority of a State/U.T. Administration in terms of the DOPT letter No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 15th November, 1993 may issue the OBC certificate to a person who has migrated from another State on the production of a genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of his father‟s origin except where the prescribed authority feels that a detailed enquiry is necessary through the State of origin before the issue of the certificate."

It is not clear whether there are any other instructions on the subject also. It has not been clarified in the pleadings as to why existing instructions were not applied in the case of the applicant and provisions introduced subsequent to the conclusion of the selection process were relied upon.

As far as the above cited judgments are concerned, the facts and circumstances in them being different from that in the present case an exact parallel cannot be drawn.

In the present OA, the candidature of the applicant has been kept pending solely on the ground that the fact of his being an OBC candidate has not been finally established. The basic issue here is to decide whether the applicant belongs to the OBC category or not which would require a process of examination of evidence in the framework of existing rules and procedures. This clearly is not within the domain of this Tribunal.

Be that as it may, the applicant can also not be expected to wait endlessly for the respondents to come to a conclusion whether he belongs to the OBC category or not and should or should not be given the consequential benefit of reservation.

Under the circumstances, we dispose of this OA with a direction that the respondents shall duly consider all material that the applicant has submitted or which may be available with the respondents or can be obtained by them for the purpose of determining whether the applicant belongs to the OBC category or not. The applicant may also file a fresh representation along with any document that he may wish to submit in support of his contention of being an OBC candidate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall consider all relevant material on record and make such enquiries, as may be necessary, and come to a definite conclusion whether the candidate belongs to the OBC category or not. They shall do the same through a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order, which would include addressing the observations made in para 8 above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation of the applicant or, if no representation is received, within one month of the last date by which the applicant has been allowed to make a representation by this order. If the applicant is found to be belonging to the OBC category, he shall be given all such benefits, as are accordingly available. No costs.