- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Dalbir Singh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants (Union authorities responsible for recruitment of “mazdoor” posts at Suranasi, Jalandhar) issued an employment notice specifying separate vacancies for General and Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates. Respondent 1 applied exclusively under the OBC category and annexed an OBC certificate dated 4-5-1997. During verification, the issuing authority reported that this certificate had not been issued by them. Respondent 1 then supplied another certificate dated 14-8-2000 from the same authority, but the caste mentioned (“Saini”) was not recognised as OBC in Punjab. Consequently, the appellants rejected his candidature.
Respondent 1 filed OA No. 86-HR of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, requesting appointment either (a) under the General category based on his marks, or (b) on acceptance of the later OBC certificate. The CAT accepted that the OBC certificates were invalid yet directed the appellants to appoint him in the General category because his marks exceeded those of the last selected General-category candidate. The appellants challenged this before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 6481-CAT of 2005. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 25-4-2005, upholding the CAT’s direction. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by special leave; leave was granted, resulting in the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the appellants to appoint Respondent 1 in the General category even though he had applied only under the OBC category.
- Whether marks obtained by a candidate who exclusively opted for a reserved category can be used to displace a duly selected candidate in the General category.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent 1 (Applicant before CAT)
- Requested appointment as a mazdoor with consequential benefits.
- Urged, in the alternative, that if his OBC certificate was not accepted, his candidature should be considered in the General category because his marks were higher than those of the last selected General-category candidate.
Appellants (Recruiting Authority)
- Separate merit lists were prepared for General and OBC candidates in accordance with the advertisement.
- Respondent 1 had consciously opted for consideration only under the OBC category and therefore bore the responsibility of producing a valid OBC certificate.
- Because he never applied under the General category, his name could not be shifted into that list after the fact.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the advertisement and the dual-list procedure adopted by the appellants. It found that:
- The respondent had applied solely under the OBC category and never asked the recruiting authority to consider him under the General category during the recruitment process.
- Two separate selection lists—one for General and one for OBC candidates—had been prepared, a method to which the respondent never objected.
- Because the respondent’s certificates were defective, the CAT itself accepted his ineligibility under the OBC category. Having reached that conclusion, the Tribunal, in the Court’s view, had no justification for shifting him to the General list.
- Allowing such a post-selection migration would undermine the integrity of the selection process and unjustly displace a candidate duly selected in the General category.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed – Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court Set Aside.
Direct effect: Respondent 1 is not entitled to appointment; no consequential benefits accrue. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Broader implications: The judgment reinforces that a candidate who chooses to compete under a reserved category may not subsequently claim entitlement in the General category merely because of higher marks, particularly where separate selection lists have been maintained in accordance with the recruitment notice. No new legal precedent on other issues was established.
H.L Dattu, J.— Leave granted. This appeal which has come before us on special leave is directed against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6481-CAT of 2005 dated 25-4-2005, affirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 86-HR of 2003 dated 22-5-2004.
2. The short question is: whether the Administrative Tribunal is justified in directing the appellants to appoint Respondent 1 as a selected candidate in the general category even though he had not applied under that category?
3. The appellants advertised in the newspaper for selection to 20 vacant posts of mazdoor, both in general and reserved category. Respondent 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 Respondent 1 was also (sic included) in the said proceedings.
4. 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.
5. 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 1, and thereafter, he produced another certificate dated 14-8-2000 issued by SDO(C), Ambala in which a new address was given and Respondent 1 was shown to be in OBC category on account of his being of “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 1 came to be rejected by the appellants and accordingly, no letter of appointment was issued to Respondent 1.
6. Aggrieved by the action of the appellants, the contesting respondent filed OA No. 86 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, seeking a direction that he be provided employment on the post of mazdoor with all consequential benefits either by including his name in the list of candidates prepared for general category or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents therein to accept the OBC certificate issued by SDO(C), Ambala dated 14-8-2000.
7. 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.
8. The appellants 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.
9. 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 a letter of appointment to the respondent by considering his candidature in the general category as he had scored more marks than one of the candidate in the general category. Against this decision, the appellants had carried the matter by way of a 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.
10. The substantial point that requires consideration in the appeal is: whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to give appointment to Respondent 1 under general category on the basis of marks obtained by him, even if it requires replacing of a last candidate in the selected general category.
11. For proper determination of the question, it would be convenient first of all to refer to the advertisement/employment notice issued by the appellants inviting applications to fill up the vacant posts of mazdoors in Suranasi, Jalandhar.
12. In the employment notice there is a mention of number of posts available in general category and Other Backward Classes (OBC category). Pursuant to the aforesaid employment notice, Respondent 1 filed his application to consider his case under the OBC category. In support of his claim, he had produced the caste certificate. It so happened that the certificate produced was found to be defective. This had resulted in not enlisting his name in the select list. The respondent at no point of time had claimed before the authorities that if for any reason, his case cannot be considered under OBC category, at least the appellants should consider his case under the general merit list.
13. From the pleadings it appears to us that the appellants had prepared two sets of lists. The first one being the list of those candidates who had staked their claim in the general merit and the second list contains those candidates who had opted for consideration of their case under OBC category. The respondent at no point of time had taken exception to the procedure adopted by the appellants in preparing the select list. In our opinion, having opted to consider his case only under OBC category, he cannot thereafter claim that his case requires to be considered in the general merit, only because he has scored better percentage of marks than the last selected candidate in the general merit.
14. In our considered view, the Administrative Tribunal having found that the appellants were justified in not considering the respondent's case for appointment under OBC category, ought not to have directed the appellants to consider his claim under general category.
15. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
Alert