Vandana vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors

Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the instant O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“8. I. Allow the present Original Application; and

II. Quash the impugned Notice dated 10.06.2021. bearing No. F. NO. 236/Result/Asstt. Teacher (Nursery)/lnt. Cell/DSSSB/2019-2020 / 1581-90 as well as the Order dated 30.09.2021 whereby the candidature for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) against OBC category was rejected; and

III. To the direct the Respondent to take time bound steps to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) against OBC category; and

IV. Pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondents. He highlights para 5 and 6 of the said order, which reads as under:-

“5. Further when the merit in each category became lower, she was given 10 days 1st opportunity w.e.f. 25.05.2021 to 03.06.2021 to upload 'OBC (Deihl) certificate vicle which her caste is recognized as backward class under Govt. of Delhi vide Notice No. F. No. 236/Result/Asstt. Teacher (Nursery)/lnt. Cell/DSSSB/2019-20/1495-1503 dated 17/05/2021. The candidate was also informed through SMS as an additional facility to upload the deficient documents in the e-dossier on her mobile no. 9910662876 registered with OARS module of DSSSB.

That even after giving 10 days 1st opportunity w.e.f. 25.05.2021 to 03.06.2021 it was found that Ms. Vandana failed to upload OBC (Delhi) certificate in the e-dossier. Accordingly, she was given 05 days, 2nd and final opportunity w.e.f. 15.06.2021 to 19.06.2021 10 upload 'OBC (Delhi) .ce.rtificate vide which her caste is recognized as backward class under Govt. of Delhi vide Notice No. F. No. 236/Result/Asstt. Teacher (Nursery)/lnt Cell/DSSSB/2019-20/1581-90 dated 10/06/2021.”

2.1. He draws attention that the applicant has applied for a new certificate, which was issued on 19.06.2021. The said certificate reads as under:-

“This is to certify that VANDANA D/o MOHAN LAL R/o 615/9, Z-BLOCK, ROAD NO-5, SHYAM VIHAR PHASE-1 NAJAFGARH DELHI 110043 INDIA belongs to the KAHAR community which is recognised as Other Backward Class under the Government of NCT of Delhi notified vide Notification No. F.28(93)/91-92/SCST/P&S/ 4384 dated 1995-01-20 published in the Gazette of Delhi Extraordinary Part-IV.

VANDANA and her family ordinarily resides at 615/9, Z-BLOCK, ROAD NO-5, SHYAM VIHAR PHASE-1 NAJAFGARH DELHI 110043 INDIA

This is also to certify that she does not belong to the person/sections (Creamy layer) mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule to the Govt. of India Department of Personnel & Training OM. No. 36012/22/93-Est (SCT). 36033/3/2004-Estt.(Res), 36033/1/2013-Estt. (Res) dated 8/91993, 9/03/2004 & 14/10/2008 and 27/5/2013 respectively,”

And therefore draws a distinction between the decision rendered in W. P. No. 373/2024 titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Nisha and W.P. No. 10587/2024 titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi and ANR. Vs. Jyoti decided on 01.07.2025 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

2.3. He submits that the said certificate was obtained, immediately a representation was made. The impugned order has passed, ignoring the certificate issued on 19.06.2021, which has to be taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.

Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would rely upon the averments contained the counter affidavit. She justify the action taken by the respondents in disposing of the representation of the applicant. She further highlights that as per the advertisement notification the date was sacrosanct. She would submit that the opening date of submission of form was 16.09.2019 and the closing date of submission of application form was 15.10.2019. The certificate which was purportedly submitted was not in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated, therefore, merely because a deficiency memo was issued it was incumbent upon the applicant to submit the documents before the cut-off date which was sacrosanct. She further reiterates that the said certificate as quoted herein above also does not meet the standard i.e. Reservation Benefits clause as stipulated in the advertisement, more particularly in light of clause 5. IV, which reads as under:-

“(iv) Only following two types of certificates will be accepted as valid certificates for grant of benefit of reservation to OBCs:

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

(B) 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 a family member of the concerned person who had been residing in Delhi before 08/09/1993.”

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.

Recently, an identical issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in O.A. no. 4433/2018 in the matter of Khushboo Verma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided on 07.11.2025. While dismissing the said O.A., Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has observed as under:-

“8. We have considered the O.M. dated 28.07.2016 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi regarding reservation of OBCs, which reads as under:

“Sub: Reservation for OBCs in the jobs under the Government of N.C.T. Of Delhi - reg.

In continuation with this department's circular dated 27.07.2007 on the subject cited above (copies enclosed), I am directed to inform that Govt. of N.C.T. 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 Govt. of N.C.T. 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 a family member of the concerned person who had been residing in Delhi before 08/09/1993.”

It has been further clarified by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide O.M. dated 31.05.2021 as under:

“In continuation of this Department's letter No.F.19(10)/2001/S-III/Pt. File/2278-2285 dated 27th July, 2007 and No.F.19(01)/2012/S.IV/1241-1258 dated 28th July, 2016 on the subject cited above (copies enclosed), the undersigned is directed to convey the clarification that: -

1) an individual, who possesses OBC (Delhi) Certificate issued by the Revenue Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi certifying that he/she belongs to a caste which has been notified as OBC by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, shall be entitled for the benefits of reservation to OBCs in Civil posts in various Departments of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, irrespective of the fact that the said OBC (Delhi) Certificate has been issued with or without mentioning of old certificate issued to his/her father, siblings and real uncles (paternal side only)

2) an individual, who possesses the OBC Certificate issued by a Competent Authority outside Delhi, certifying his/her belonging to a community duly notified as OBC by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, shall also be entitled for the benefits of reservation to OBCs in civil posts under Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. This certificate should have mandatorily been issued on the basis of OBC Certificate issued by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to his/her father, siblings and real uncles (paternal side only) of the concerned person, who had been residing in Delhi before 8th September, 1993.

This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.”

We have also gone through various judgments cited by both the sides on the subject issue. In the case of Nisha (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the applicant, while upholding the Tribunal’s order dated 10.10.2023 in O.A. No.472/2019, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.373/2024 vide Judgment dated 01.07.2025 held as under:-

“72. To return, now, to the OBC certificate dated 6 February 2014 produced by the respondent, it is clear that it conforms to the stipulations contained in Clause 6 of Advertisement 01/13. The certificate has to be read as it is. It does not purport to have been issued to the respondent merely because she is a migrant. It clearly states that "Nisha, S/o/W/o/D/o Ashok Kumar, Resident of F-153, Vijay Vihar Ph-II Sec-4, Rohini, Delhi belongs to the community JAT which is recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC) as under", and proceeds to refer to 4 Resolutions and two Notifications which so recognize the community JAT as an OBC. The mere fact that it has been issued on the basis of the OBC certificate issued to the respondent's father in UP does not deviate from the earlier recitals in the Certificate.

There is no reason, therefore, for the respondent not to be entitled to the benefit of OBC reservation on the basis of the said certificate.”

On the other hand, in W.P.(C) No.1044/2024 in Harish Yadav (supra) relied upon by the respondents, vide Judgment dated 15.03.2024, the following has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi:

“17. The advertisement contemplates that the caste certificate should be issued by the prescribed/ competent authority with authority of Government of India/ Resolution correctly mentioned on it, which justifies the claim of the candidate. But in the present case, as noted from the OBC certificate, though the resolution of Government of India is reflected/ depicted, but the declaration of "District Magistrate, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi" in the subsequent paragraph of the certificate contemplates that it is issued on the basis of the OBC Certificate issued to the petitioner from Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The same, thus, is only an affirmation that he belongs to „Yadav‟ community of Uttar Pradesh. It is in this regard, Sub-Clause (VI) of the "General Instructions" of the advertisement, which we have reproduced above becomes relevant, as it is stated therein that the caste certificate issued other than the domicile state of candidate, will not be considered.

Reading the Sub-Clause (VI) of the "General Instructions" in perspective, the Domicile certificate issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in the case of the petitioner is not valid as the OBC Certificate necessarily has to be issued by the Authority i.e. District Magistrate at Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh where the petitioner hails from and not „on the basis‟ of any other caste certificate issued by another Authority.

In other words, the certificate must give a declaration by the Competent Authority upon satisfaction that the petitioner belongs to "Yadav" community, which is a notified caste in Delhi as OBC.

Contrary thereto, in the present case the issuing Authority has only made a reference to the certificate issued by the State of Utter Pradesh. In the absence of a declaration/ certification by the Competent Authority, the respondents were right in treating the candidature of petitioner under the UR Category. It is not the case of the petitioner that he qualified under the UR Category.”

Similarly, in connected W.P.(C) No.10587/2024 in the case of Jyoti (supra) to WP(C) No. 373/2024 (GNCTD & Ors. vs Nisha), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide the very Judgment dated 01.07.2025, held as under:

“43. Clause 5(iv) of the Vacancy Notice requires an OBC certificate, if issued by an authority outside Delhi, to certify that the candidate has been residing in Delhi prior to 1993. That requirement is not stipulated in respect of OBC certificates issued by the GNCTD. In the case of OBC certificates issued by the GNCTD, sub-clause (A) in Clause 5(iv) of the Vacancy Notice applies. What is required in the case of such certificates is an express statement in the certificate that it has been issued on the basis of an old certificate issued by the GNCTD to a family member of the candidate. This requirement is not satisfied either by the certificate dated 2 January 2013 filed by Jyoti with her application or by the certificate dated 24 June 2022 filed along with the counter affidavit before this Court.

The entire issuance of the certificate dated 24 June 2022, in fact, appears to be shrouded in mystery. In the first place, as already noted, this document was never filed before the Tribunal, though it purports to have been issued more than a year prior to the passing of the impugned judgment. Secondly, the clarification by the Tehsildar Dwarka was issued almost more than 2 ½ months after the certificate itself was issued on 12 September 2022. In the said clarification, it is recorded that the earlier certificate issued to the respondent on 2 January 2013 was lost, and a lost report had been lodged in that regard by the respondent with the Delhi Police. The date of loosing of the certificate is not mentioned. The lost report has come to have been filed as late as on 17 May 2022. Nearly two years after that, the present petition came to be filed before this Court in which a copy of the certificate dated 2 January 2013, stated to have been lost around May 2022, has been annexed.

We, therefore, are reluctant to accord any significance to the OBC certificate dated 24 June 2022 filed by the respondent with her counter affidavit. In any case, as we have already noted, this certificate too, does not conform to Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice.

In matters of recruitment, especially where a large number of candidates apply, the conditions in the notification or advertisement inviting applications have to be strictly construed and strictly followed. The Court cannot, of its own accord, grant relaxation, on principles of fairness or equity. The reason is obvious. If the Court is to relax the requirements of the notifications or advertisement inviting applications, it would do injustice to several candidates who, had the requirements been thus relaxed, might have applied and did not do so merely because of the manner in which the requirements have been framed in the notification or advertisement. The Court cannot, in such cases, proceed on sympathetic considerations.

As the case is fully covered by our decision in the judgment of this Court in Priyanka, and the decision in Rishabh Malik, on which the Tribunal has relied, is clearly distinguishable on facts, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot sustain.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment dated 8 December 2023 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. OA 1538/2022 filed by the respondent before the Tribunal shall stand dismissed.

We clarify, however, that if consequent to the passing of the impugned judgment dated 8 December 2023, the respondent has secured appointment and any payment has been made to her consequent thereto, no recovery from the respondent shall be effected.”

Taking cognizance of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the OBC certificate issued to the applicant by the Deputy Commissioner (North West District), Delhi which, in turn, is based upon a certificate issued to her father by an Authority from the State of Haryana dated 17.07.1996, does not conform the requirement stipulated in Govt. of NCT of Delhi’s OMs dated 28.07.2016 and 31.05.2021. Accordingly, the applicant cannot be extended the benefit of reservation of OBC (Delhi) candidate. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the applicant in Nisha (supra) being distinguishable from the facts of the present case, will provide no help to the applicant. However, the facts of this case are akin to those in the case of Jyoti (supra).

In view of the above, we find no merit in the O.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Based on the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the case of the applicant and therefore the present O.A. is dismissed in light of above facts and circumstances.

Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed. Associated M.As, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.