- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Ram Kumar Gijroya & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and the Government of NCT of Delhi, published an advertisement dated 30 August 2007 inviting applications for the post of Staff Nurse, with the last date for submission of applications fixed as 21 January 2008. The five respondents (in the writ petition) applied and were permitted to appear in the examination. Their names did not appear in the list of selected candidates published on 29 July 2008. On enquiry they were informed that the reason for exclusion was non-submission of OBC certificates issued by the appropriate authority along with their application forms by the cut off date.
The five applicants filed W.P.(C) No. 382/2009 seeking a mandamus directing the appellants to accept their OBC certificates despite the certificates being submitted after the cut off date. The learned Single Judge allowed that writ petition on 24 November 2010, relying on the earlier decision in Ms. Pushpa v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and directed reconsideration of the respondents' selection in the OBC category. The appellants challenged that order by way of appeal.
Separately, W.P.(C) No. 8087/2011 was filed impugning the order dated 29 April 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing an O.A. relating to appointment to the post of Matron in the OBC category; the High Court found the controversy similar and issued notice in that writ petition on the same date as the appeal.
The appellants sought condonation of delay of 160 days in preferring the appeal; the delay was contested by the respondents but the Court examined the processing file and condoned the delay as unintentional and bona fide.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, notwithstanding an advertisement expressly requiring submission of the certificate of belonging to the OBC category along with the application by the cut off date, delay in submitting the OBC certificate can be condoned and appointment directed.
- Whether the well-established rule that eligibility must be determined as on the cut off date (as applied to qualifications) also applies to the submission of documents evidencing status (i.e., whether the OBC status — which exists by birth — can be recognized without the certificate if the certificate was not submitted by the cut off date).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments (DSSSB / Government)
- The advertisement required that the certificate of belonging to the OBC category be submitted along with the application by the cut off date; none of the respondents did so.
- The respondents were allowed to appear in the examination but, on scrutiny, were not selected because they had not submitted the requisite OBC certificates with their applications.
- The respondents applied for and received OBC certificates after the cut off date (dates for each respondent are noted in the record); except respondent No. 1 (who applied 10 days before the cut off), the others applied long after the cut off date.
- Reliance was placed on case law supporting strict observance of the cut off date and the requirement of submitting prescribed documents by that date (cases relied on are enumerated in the record).
- The Single Judge's reliance on Ms. Pushpa was said to be misconceived because the facts in that case were materially different (there the applicant had applied for the certificate much prior to the date of advertisement and delay was by the issuing authority).
Respondents' / Petitioner's Arguments
- They contend that their entitlement to be considered in the OBC category arises from birth status and is not dependent on the OBC certificate which is only proof of that status.
- Having been permitted to participate in the selection process and having cleared it, they contend they could not be denied appointment solely because the OBC certificate was not submitted by the cut off date and they should have been allowed to produce the certificate after the cut off date.
- Reliance was placed on the Single Judge's decision in Ms. Pushpa, and other authorities including Tej Pal Singh and D.S.S.S.B v. Ms. Anu Devi, to support the view that certificates may, in some circumstances, be accepted after the prescribed date or that provisional appointment subject to production/verification of certificate may be permissible.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Pushpa v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (judgment dated 11 Feb 2009) | The learned Single Judge had allowed relief where the applicant had applied for the OBC certificate much prior to the date of advertisement and delay in issuance was due to the authorities, holding she could not be blamed for delay by authorities. | The Single Judge relied on this decision to allow the writ petition; the Division Bench found the facts in the present cases distinguishable and held Ms. Pushpa inapplicable here. |
| Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2000 (1) ILR (Del) 298 : 2000 (52) DRJ 791) | Holds that status as SC/ST (and by analogy status as OBC) is not dependent on production of a certificate; provisional appointment may be made subject to verification; in that case the advertisement did not prescribe a cut off date for submission of SC/ST/OBC certificates. | The Court acknowledged Tej Pal Singh but distinguished it on facts and on the wording of the advertisement in the present cases which expressly required submission of OBC certificates by the cut off date. |
| D.S.S.S.B v. Ms. Anu Devi (2010 (2) SLR 206) | Division Bench decision which allowed relief in particular circumstances; the decision turned on the appointing authority having issued notices effectively extending the cut off date and on the Court exercising discretion under Article 226. | The Court noted Anu Devi but explained it turned on different facts (extension of cut off by notices and exercise of discretion) and thus did not warrant a larger Bench reference; the present cases were distinguished. |
| MCD v. Veena (2001) 6 SCC 571 | Persons holding OBC certificates issued by other States cannot be treated as OBCs in Delhi; applicants without OBC certificates issued by Delhi authorities are to be considered in the Unreserved category. | Relied upon by the appellants to support strict adherence to documentary requirements and territorial validity of certificates. |
| Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar (2003) 9 SCC 519 | The cut off date for determining eligibility is the date appointed by the relevant Service Rules, or if none, the date appointed in the advertisement. | Relied upon by the appellants to support the proposition that eligibility must be judged as on the cut off date specified in the advertisement. |
| Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 | Where applications are called with a last date, eligibility must be judged with reference to that date alone. | Relied upon by the appellants and accepted by the Court as part of the body of law sustaining the sanctity of the cut off date. |
| Santosh Kumar Meena v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Order dated 7 Sep 2010) | Explains the reason why a cut off date cannot be ignored: to protect other applicants and ensure fairness in recruitment. | Relied upon by the appellants; used by the Court to emphasize fairness concerns and potential prejudice to others if cut off dates are ignored. |
| Dharmendra Saini v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Order dated 20 Jan 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 8362/2009) | Denied relief to petitioners who had been careless and indifferent in timely obtaining and submitting OBC certificates. | Relied upon by the appellants and noted by the Court as consistent with refusing relief where applicants failed to take timely steps. |
| Narayan Lal Meena v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (judgment dated 31 Oct 2011, W.P.(C) No. 7767/2011) | Reiterated that eligibility must be determined on the cut off date; no relaxation can be granted; applicants cannot take advantage of mistakes by recruiting authorities; appointment of an ineligible candidate is illegal; granting relief may prejudice others. | The Court relied on this recent decision as persuasive authority affirming the sanctity of the cut off date and principles applicable to the present controversy. |
| Smt. Poonam v. GNCTD (W.P.(C) No. 8508/2007, judgment dated 02.02.2009) | Holds that delay in submission of certificate may be overlooked only where the certificate was applied for well before the cut off date but was issued subsequently for no fault of the applicant. | The Tribunal had invoked Smt. Poonam to distinguish Tej Pal Singh; the High Court noted this position in its analysis. |
| Abhishek Saini v. University of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10257/2009, order dated 13.08.2009) | Upheld the action of an authority in not permitting participation in selection for non-production of OBC certificate by the date stipulated in the bulletin (which was mandatory). | Cited by the Court as an earlier decision consistent with requiring submission of mandatory documents by the stipulated date. |
| Hari Singh v. Staff Selection Commission & Anr. (170 (2010) DLT 262 : 2010 (116) DRJ 668 (DB)) | Although an OBC certificate had not been filed by the stipulated date, a Division Bench followed Tej Pal Singh and allowed provisional admission in the peculiar facts where explanation was accepted. | Mentioned by the Court as an instance where provisional relief was granted on peculiar facts and where explanation for non-submission was accepted; not treated as general precedent for the present facts. |
| Union Public Service Commission v. GNCTD (Order dated 25 Jan 2010, W.P.(C) No. 10558/2009) | Procedure for making applications must be followed; applicants cannot insist that incomplete applications be accepted; rejection of applicants who had not submitted documents required with the application upheld. | Relied upon for the proposition that procedural requirements in advertisements must be enforced and incomplete applications can be rejected. |
| Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan (2002) 2 SCC 560 | Courts should be reluctant to issue mandamus or directives contrary to the terms of selection/appointment. | Cited by the Court to support reluctance to direct appointments contrary to clear terms of selection processes. |
| FCI v. Ram Kesh Yadav (2007) 9 SCC 531 | Supports the principle that courts should not direct appointments contrary to selection terms. | Cited by the Court as reinforcing the proposition that mandamus inconsistent with selection rules is undesirable. |
| Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (JT 2010 (7) SC 179) | Supports the principle that courts should not grant relief contrary to selection/appointment terms. | Cited by the Court as part of the authorities cautioning against ordering appointments inconsistent with selection terms. |
| State of West Bengal v. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee (2010) 11 SCC 694 | Another authority cited for refusing mandamus contrary to selection terms. | Relied upon by the Court in emphasizing its reluctance to issue orders inconsistent with advertised selection conditions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded to analyze the central question by reference to the advertisements' express terms, the sequence of events in each case, and the applicable precedents.
1. Condonation of Delay: The Court examined the original processing file of the appeal and concluded the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal was unintentional and bona fide; the delay was therefore condoned and the appeal heard on merits.
2. Principle of Cut Off Date: The Court reiterated its recent holding in Narayan Lal Meena that eligibility must be determined as on the cut off date prescribed and no relaxation can be granted; allowing relief where the cut off is ignored prejudices others and illegally benefits ineligible candidates.
3. Distinction between Status and Qualification: The Court acknowledged an important distinction: while a qualification (e.g., educational qualification) may be acquired after the cut off date and thereby not satisfy the eligibility requirement, the status of belonging to OBC is a status by birth and the certificate is only proof of that status (as held in Tej Pal Singh). However, the application of that principle depends on the specific wording of the advertisement.
4. Application to the Present Cases: In the present matters the advertisement expressly required that OBC certificates be filed along with the application by the cut off date (21 January 2008). Given the unambiguous language, the Court held that the exception in Tej Pal Singh (which turned on absence of a cut off date in the advertisement and an incorporated provisional appointment/verification scheme) did not apply here.
5. Precedent and Policy Considerations: The Court relied on authorities emphasizing the sanctity of the cut off date and the need for uniform adherence to advertised procedures (including Shankar K. Mandal, Ashok Kumar Sonkar, MCD v. Veena, Santosh Kumar Meena and others), observing that waiving the cut off in individual cases could prejudice other candidates who refrained from applying due to non-possession of certificates by the cut off date.
6. Factual Differentiation: The Court examined respondent No. 1's case (who applied for the OBC certificate ten days before the cut off) and found it not comparable to Ms. Pushpa (where application for certificate was made much prior to the advertisement). No case of respondent No. 1 being blameless was made out on the facts presented.
7. Conclusion from Analysis: Considering the express requirement in the advertisement and the body of precedent reinforcing the cut off rule, the Court concluded the Single Judge erred in extending the principle of Ms. Pushpa to these cases and declined to grant the relief sought by respondents who had not complied with the cut off requirement.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed. The Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24 November 2010 and agreed with the order of the Tribunal impugned in W.P.(C) No. 8087/2011, thereby dismissing the writ petition.
Immediate consequences for the parties:
- The directions of the Single Judge requiring reconsideration of selection of the respondents in the OBC category were vacated.
- The respondents who failed to submit OBC certificates by the cut off date are not entitled to appointment on that basis under the terms of the advertisement as interpreted by the Court.
- No order as to costs was made.
Broader implications:
- The Court reaffirmed the principle that eligibility (including compliance with documentary requirements specified in an advertisement) must be judged as on the cut off date and that courts will be reluctant to override clear, mandatory procedural requirements in selection processes.
- The Court distinguished prior authorities that allowed relaxation only where the facts (such as an earlier application for the certificate or the absence of a cut off in the advertisement, or administrative extension) made such relaxation justified; thus the decision emphasizes careful attention to the language of individual advertisements and the factual matrix of each case.
The opinion does not purport to lay down a new general principle beyond applying existing authorities to the facts before the Court; its effect is to apply established law on cut off dates and procedural strictness to these specific factual scenarios.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:— The appeal impugns the order dated 24th November, 2010 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P(C) No. 382/2009 preferred by the five respondents seeking mandamus commanding the appellants Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and Govt. of NCT of Delhi to accept the Other Backward Classes (OBC) Certificates submitted by them for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi after the cut off date provided therefor. It was the case of the respondents in the writ petition that the appellants had vide advertisement published on 30th August, 2007 invited applications for the post of Staff Nurse; that the last date specified in the said advertisement for submitting the applications was 21st January, 2008; the respondents applied before the cut off date for selection under the OBC category and the appellants issued Admit Card enabling the respondents to appear in the examination to be held therefor; that the respondents had so appeared in the examination and were shortlisted for selection; that however their names did not find mention in the list published on 29th July, 2008 of selected candidates; that on enquiries they learnt that they were not selected for the reason of their having not submitted the OBC Certificates issued by the appropriate authority of belonging to the OBC Category along with their application forms. The respondents hence claimed the relief aforesaid commanding the appellants to accept the OBC Certificates from them. Notice of the said writ petition was issued. It appears that the respondents herein applied for early hearing of the writ petition on the ground that the matter in controversy was covered by the judgment dated 11th February, 2009 in W.P(C) No. 9112/2008 titled Ms. Pushpa v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The said application for early hearing was listed before the learned Single Judge on 24th November, 2010 when the same was allowed and the writ petition taken up for hearing immediately. The learned Single Judge finding the matter to be covered by Ms. Pushpa (supra) allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to re-consider the selection of the respondents in the OBC Category. Aggrieved therefrom this appeal was preferred, notice whereof was issued. Only the respondents No. 1, 2 & 5 namely Sh. Ram Kumar Gijroya, Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Yogi and Sh. Jaswant Kumar Yadav have chosen to contest the appeal.
2. The respondents in the appeal have also opposed the prayer of the appellants in appeal for condonation of delay of 160 days in preferring the appeal. We had on 9th November, 2011 directed the appellants to produce the original records whereby the file of the appeal was processed. The said records were produced before us and have been perused and we are satisfied that the delay in preferring the appeal is unintentional and bona fide and sufficient cause for condonation thereof is made out. Accordingly, the said delay is condoned and the appeal is considered on merits.
3. W.P(C) No. 8087/2011 has been preferred impugning the order dated 29th April, 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing O.A No. 2427/2010 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction for her appointment for the post of Matron in the office of the DG, Prisons, in the OBC Category. Finding the controversy in the writ petition to be the same as in the appeal aforesaid, notice thereof was issued for the same date when the appeal was listed.
4. It is the case of the appellants in the appeal that the applicants in pursuance to the advertisement supra and seeking appointment in the OBC Category were required to submit the certificate of belonging to the OBC Category along with the application form by the cut off date advertised for submission of the applications; that none of the respondents however so submitted the certificate; they were allowed to appear in the examination and on the basis of the result of the examination, provisionally selected in the OBC Category; however finding, on scrutiny of applications, the respondents to have not submitted the certificate of belonging to the OBC Category alongwith the application form, they were not so selected.
5. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was published on 30th August, 2007 and the last date for submission of applications was 21st January, 2008.
6. It is the categorical case of the appellants in the appeal that the respondents No. 1 to 5 applied to the appropriate authority for issuance of the OBC Certificates on 10th January, 2008, 19th June, 2008, 27th November, 2008, 21st August, 2008 and 1st February, 2008 respectively and OBC Certificates were issued to them on 6th February, 2008, 23rd June, 2008, 2nd December, 2008, 8th December, 2008 and 1st February, 2008 respectively. It is thus the case of the appellants that save for the respondent No. 1 who applied for the OBC Certificate ten days prior to the cut off date, the respondents No. 2 to 5 applied for the OBC Certificates long after the cut off date and the OBC Certificates in any case were issued to all the respondents after the cut off date and submitted to the appellants even thereafter. The appellants contend that the requirement of the advertisement inviting applications being of submission of OBC Certificate alongwith the application by the cut off date and none of the respondents having done so, they cannot be appointed even if had cleared the examination held for selection.
7. Ms. Pushpa, judgment (supra) in whose writ petition was relied upon by the learned Single Judge had also applied in pursuance to the same advertisement. It was however her case that she had applied, to the concerned office of SDM for issuance of OBC Certificate much prior to even the date of the advertisement and it was owing to the delay by the office of the SDM in issuing the Certificate that she could not submit the same along with her application and had submitted the same immediately upon the same being made available. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition preferred by Ms. Pushha holding that she could not be blamed or made to suffer for the delay on the part of the authorities in making the Certificate available to her.
8. It is the contention of Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for the appellants in the appeal that the reliance by the learned Single Judge on Ms. Pushpa is misconceived inasmuch as the facts of the present case are materially different from that in the case of Ms. Pushpa. She contends that relief was granted to Ms. Pushpa for the reason of her having applied for the Certificate even prior to the date of the advertisement and her inability to submit the Certificate being owing to the delay by the authorities. It is contended that on the contrary, save for the respondent No. 1 (who applied for the Certificate as aforesaid ten days before the cut off date), the other respondents even applied for the Certificate long after the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement.
9. The Tribunal in the order dated 29th April, 2011 impugned in the writ petition has also found the petitioner in the writ petition to have applied for the OBC Certificate after the closing date for submission of the applications and has thus held the judgment in Ms. Pushpa to be not applicable.
10. The counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 5 in the appeal and the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition have contended that they were entitled to be considered for appointment in the OBC Category by virtue of their status as belonging to the OBC Category; that their said status is by birth and is not dependent on the Certificate; that they having been allowed to participate in the selection process and having cleared the selection process could not be denied appointment for the reason of having not submitted the OBC Certificate by the cut off date; that they should have been given opportunity to produce the Certificate even after the cut off date. Besides, the judgment in Ms. Pushpa, reliance is placed on Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2000 (1) ILR (Del) 298 : 2000 (52) DRJ 791 and judgment dated 17th February, 2010 of a Division Bench of this court in W.P(C) No. 13870/2009 titled D.S.S.S.B v. Ms. Anu Devi connected writ petitions reported as 2010 (2) SLR 206.
11. On the contrary, Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for the appellants has relied on:
(i) MCD v. Veena (2001) 6 SCC 571 laying down that persons holding OBC Certificates issued by other States cannot be treated as OBCs in Delhi and the applicants who had not submitted OBC Certificates issued by the authorities in Delhi were to be considered in Unreserved Category;
(ii) Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar (2003) 9 SCC 519 laying down that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant Service Rules and if there is no cut off date appointed by the Rules, then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for the applications;
(iii) Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 laying down that the proposition where the applications are called by prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates has to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone is a well established one;
(iv) Judgment dated 7th September, 2010 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P(C) No. 1343/2010 titled Santosh Kumar Meena v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi laying down that the reason why a cut off date cannot be ignored in an individual case is that there may be other persons who may have applied, had they known that the date of acquiring qualification was flexible;
(v) Order dated 20th January, 2010 of this Court in W.P(C) No. 8362/2009 titled Dharmendra Saini v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi denying the relief to the petitioners who had remained careless and indifferent in taking timely steps not only in obtaining the OBC Certificates but in submission of the same.
12. The common legal question to be adjudicated in the appeal and the writ petition thus is whether notwithstanding the advertisement inviting applications requiring the certificate of belonging to the Reserved Category being filed along with application by the cut off date, the delay in submitting the certificate can be condoned and appointment directed.
13. We have recently in judgment dated 31st October, 2011 in W.P(C) No. 7767/2011 titled Narayan Lal Meena v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi had occasion to consider the sanctity of the cut off date qua eligibility qualification and have on a conspectus of the case law, need to reiterate which is not felt, held that eligibility has to be determined as on the cut off date prescribed and no relaxation can be granted; that the applicants cannot take any advantage of the mistake, if any on the part of the appointing/recruiting authorities in allowing the applicants to appear in the examination and interview; that appointment of an ineligible candidate is illegal and no question of estoppel arises. It was further held that granting any relief to the applicant approaching the Court in such cases would tantamount to giving a benefit to such applicants to the prejudice of others; if the eligibility were allowed to be determined on the date of the interview and/or on the date of appointment, then the same would be to the detriment/prejudice of others who considering themselves to be ineligible as per the terms of advertisement did not apply. It was further held that the same would tantamount to giving premium to the illegality practiced in applying when the person was clearly in the know that he/she was ineligible to apply. It was yet further held that in such situation, it is well-nigh possible that had others similarly placed as the petitioner and who acted honestly and did not apply, also applied and competed, the petitioner may not even have been found successful.
14. The only question which thus remains to be adjudicated is whether what has already been held by us as aforesaid qua the eligibility qualification applies also to submission of documents as the OBC Certificate. The distinction is obvious. While the qualification does not exist on the cut off date, the status as OBC exists which as has been held in Tej Pal Singh (supra) is not dependent on the certificate which is but a proof of such status.
15. The Tribunal, in the order impugned in the writ petition, though noticed Tej Pal Singh held that in subsequent judgment dated 02.02.2009 in W.P(C) No. 8508/2007 titled Smt. Poonam v. GNCTD, the law developed was that the delay in submission of certificate could be overlooked only if the certificate had been applied for well before the cut off date but was issued subsequently and for no fault of the applicant.
16. We may however notice that Tej Pal Singh, (judgment of one of us i.e the Acting Chief Justice and LPA No. 304/2000 whereagainst was dismissed on 15.12.2000 and SLP dismissed on 16.04.2001) referred to the Chapter in Swamy's Compilation on Reservations and Concessions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) under the heading “Verification of Claim for SC & ST” which inter alia stipulated verification of status belonging to the SC/ST after the provisional appointment. It was on the basis of the same that it was held that a person who claims to belong to SG/ST Category is not to be denied appointment merely because he has not been able to produce the certificate. It was held that the provision termed appointment in the Reserved Category on a provisional basis and subject to submission of proof. This Court further found the advertisement inviting applications in that case to have also provided so and incorporated the Chapter aforesaid. It was yet further found that the advertisement did not prescribe the cut off date for the purpose of submitting SC/ST/OBC Certificates.
17. On the contrary, the advertisement in the appeal as well as the writ petition clearly provided that the certificates of belonging to OBC category had to be filed along with the application by the cut off date. We, therefore, are of the opinion that what was held in Tej Pal Singh qua the status as SC/ST and in the context of language of the advertisement in that case would not apply to the present cases concerning OBCs and in view of the unambiguous, language of the advertisements inviting applications in the present cases. Inspite of judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in Anu Devi supra, need is not felt to refer the matter to a larger Bench because the judgment in Anu Devi turned on, firstly the appointing authority in that case, notwithstanding the cut off date, having issued notices demanding the certificates thereby extending the cut off date and secondly on this Court exercising the discretion under Article 226 in refusing to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in that case. We are however consciously distinguishing Tej Pal Singh (supra). We may also notice that our Brother who has authored the judgment in Anu Devi had earlier, sitting singly in judgment dated 13.08.2009 in W.P(C) No. 10257/2009 titled Abhishek Saini v. University of Delhi held that the action of the University in not permitting the petitioner in that case to participate in the selection process on account of non-production of OBC certificate by the date stipulated in the Bulletin of Information and which was mandatory cannot be faulted with. Mention may also be made of Hari Singh… v. Staff Selection Commission & Anr.… 170 (2010) DLT 262 : 2010 (116) DRJ 668 (DB) where another Division Bench notwithstanding the OBC certificate having not been filed by the stipulated date and following Tej Pal held a case for making provisional admission to have been made out but again in the peculiar facts of that case and accepting the explanation for non-submission thereof.
18. Another Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 25th January, 2010 in WP(C) No. 10558/2009 titled Union Public Service Commission v. GNCTD connected Writ Petitions held that the procedure for making applications cannot be given a go by for accommodating a few people and if this is done there would be no obligation on anybody to follow any procedure resulting in an unmanageable situation. It was further held that the procedure prescribed in the advertisement casts a duty on the applicants to apply in accordance therewith and they cannot be allowed to contend that their application should be accepted even if incomplete. Accordingly, the rejection of the applicants who had not submitted the documents required to be submitted alongwith the application form was upheld.
19. Else, what has been observed by us qua qualification, equally applies to submission of OBC Certificate also. It is well-nigh possible that a number of other OBC candidates, though otherwise eligible but not in possession of the OBC Certificate by the cut off date, did not apply under the belief that being required to enclose the OBC Certificate along with the application and being not in possession thereof, their applications would be deficient and not entertainable. It is yet further possible that, had such others applied and competed, the respondents in appeal and/or the petitioner in the writ petition may not have been eligible. The respondents in appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition were clearly in the know that their applications were incomplete and took a chance. This Court cannot lay down a law which would encourage such practices. The terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement were intended, to guide/instruct the prospective applicants and there is no reason to dilute the same. Even otherwise, this Court would be loathe to issue mandamus/directive contrary to the terms of selection/appointment (see Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan (2002) 2 SCC 560, FCI v. Ram Kesh Yadav (2007) 9 SCC 531, Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur JT 2010 (7) SC 179 and State of West Bengal v. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee (2010) 11 SCC 694).
20. As far as the case of the respondent No. 1 in appeal who had applied for OBC Certificate ten days before the cut off date is concerned, we are unable to find the same at par with Ms. Pushpa. In Ms. Pushpa, the application for OBC Certificate had been filed much prior to the date of advertisement. The advertisement in the present case as per the respondents was published on 30th August, 2007 and the respondent No. 1 applied for OBC Certificate barely ten days prior to the cut off date. No case of the said respondent No. 1 being not at fault also is thus made out.
21. We therefore are unable to agree with the order of the learned Single Judge challenged in appeal and set aside the same. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Axiomatically, we are in agreement with the order of the Tribunal challenged in the writ petition and dismiss the writ petition.
No order as to costs.
Alert