Sanju vs Chairman Staff Selection Commission

Nita Chowdhury, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"A. consider the applicant under OBC category for the recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Female, Delhi Police-2016 and further it is also prayed that the applicant be given appointment as per her merit in OBC category, in the interest of justice.

B. Any other relief the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Brief facts of the case are that applicant belongs to OBC category, i.e., Ahir Community. On 10.9.2016, SSC published an advertisement in the Employment News for recruitment of Temporary Constables (Executive) - Male and Female in Delhi Police, 2016.

1 Applicant has further stated that on 11.9.2016 at about 2. 00 am theft took place in her house in which jewellery, cash and other documents, including OBC certificate, were stolen from the Almirah.

2 It is further stated that applicant submitted her form for the said post mentioning her category as unreserved, according to her, because of fear that she was not having her OBC certificate at the time of filing of the application form as her OBC certificate had been stolen from her house on 11. 9.2016.

3 The applicant applied for issuance of her fresh OBC certificate which was issued to her on 1.3.2017 (Annexure A/3).

4 The applicant submitted her OBC certificate to the respondents at the time of her Physical Endurance & Measurement Test, which she duly qualified. On 5.12.2017, the applicant appeared in the written examination.

2.5 In the month of February 2018, the result of the recruitment of the said post was declared and the applicant scored 64 marks and she was shown to be belonging to UR category despite the fact that she had submitted her OBC certificate to the respondents at the time of her Physical Endurance & Measurement Test.

2.6 The cut off summary to the post in question was issued by the SSC in which it was shown that the last female who was selected in OBC category scored 62 marks.

2.7 On 25.2.2018, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondents to consider her candidature in OBC category for the purpose of recruitment to the said post.

2.8 Being aggrieved by non-consideration of her representation by the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the relief as quoted above.

Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents they have categorically stated that applicant had applied for the said post under UR category and in her PE&MT as also her written test, her category has also been mentioned as General and they further stated that in the Admit Card of PE&MT at Sl No.8, it has been clearly mentioned that "No request for change in the particulars once filled by the candidate in the application form will be considered."

During the course of hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant had applied under UR category but she has submitted her OBC certificate to the respondents at the time of PE&MT and therefore, the respondents ought to have considered her case in OBC category instead of UR category.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that applicant has appeared in the PE&MT as a general category candidate, which fact is evident from the result of the said PE&MT wherein the applicant's category is mentioned as General and not OBC, and since the applicant cleared the same, admit card for appearing in the examination was also issued to her as a general category candidate and in the said admit card, it is categorically stated that no request for change in the particulars once filled in by the candidate in the application form will be considered. It is only after declaration of the result, the applicant has submitted her representation alleging the aforesaid contention but the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the representation submitted by the applicant was duly considered by the competent authority and the same was rejected by a reasoned and speaking order dated 6.4.2018 (Annexure-2) and as such there is no illegality in the action of the respondents.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleading on record, this Court accepts the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents, as it is an admitted fact that the applicant has submitted her online application as a general category candidate and from the perusal of the PE&MT result, it is again clear that the applicant was treated as a general category candidate and the admit card issued upon her qualifying the said PE&MT was also as a general category candidate. The applicant has not placed on record any document to show that she has taken any steps to change her category prior to submission of her representation, although applicant alleged that she has submitted her OBC certificate at the time of PE&MT, but the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. We have also perused the OBC certificate annexed with the OA at page 40 of the paperbook, which contains the date of issuance of the same as 1.3.2017, i.e., much after the date of submission of online application and the said certificate is not a duplicate of previous OBC certificate as alleged to have been stolen by thieves. We have also perused the copy of FIR dated 11.9.2016 at page 36-37 of the paperbook, we found that in the said FIR only Jewellery, coin and currency were stated to have been stolen from the residence of the applicant but there is no mention of about any theft of documents.

Moreover, the applicant has not produced any rule or condition relating to the said examination, which permits a candidate to apply for change of category even after declaration of result. It is trite law that once a candidate has applied under a specific category, the said candidate has to be considered for the post applied for under the said category only, except otherwise provided in the rules.

In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.