Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. vs Rishabh Malik on 23 April, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23.04.2019
+ W.P.(C) 2074/2019 & C.M. No.9688/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, St. Counsel,
GNCTD (Services) with Mr. N.K.
Singh and Ms.Ankita Ahuja Singh,
Advs.
versus
RISHABH MALIK ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2832/2018 filed by the respondent. In his aforesaid original application, the respondent/applicant had challenged his exclusion from the Select list for the post of Warder (Male) - Post Code 37/13 in Delhi Police under the OBC category and had prayed for his appointment to the said post with all consequential benefits.
W.P.(C) 2074/2019 Page 1 of 5
2. On 25.06.2013, the petitioner no.2/Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued advertisement no. 02/13 inviting applications for the post of Warder (Male) - Post Code-37/13 in Delhi Police, for which the respondent had applied under the OBC category. The selection process included a written test and a physical endurance test ('PET'). The respondent secured 116.75 marks in the written test held on 02.03.2014 and consequently, he was permitted to participate in the PET, which he successfully cleared. When the final result of the selection was published on 09.07.2018, the respondent's name was not included therein on the ground that his candidature along with those of four others had been rejected under the OBC category as they did not belong to the OBC category (Delhi). It may be noted that the list of selected candidates under the OBC category shows that the last selected candidate under the said category had secured 86.75 marks in the written examination.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of the aforesaid OA. The Tribunal, after noticing the fact that the respondent belongs to the Jat caste which had been duly notified as an OBC by the petitioner no.1/GNCTD, allowed the OA vide its order dated 31.10.2018 by holding that the respondent/applicant's candidature was eligible for consideration under the OBC category. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the DSSSB to consider the respondent's case under the OBC category for the post of Warder (Male)-Post Code-37/13 and, in the event he was found qualified in terms of his merit, a letter of
W.P.(C) 2074/2019 Page 2 of 5 recommendation was directed to be issued to the User Department in the GNCTD within a period of eight weeks.
4. It is in these circumstances that the GNCTD and DSSSB have filed the present petition impugning the Tribunal's aforesaid order dated 31.10.2018. Ms.Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal, while holding the respondent as being eligible under the OBC category, has overlooked the fact that the respondent was an OBC (migrant) whose OBC (Delhi) certificate dated 29.06.2009 had been issued solely on the basis of the OBC certificate issued to his father by the Tehsildar, Budhana, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.). She submits that as the OBC certificate issued to the respondent was based on his father's OBC certificate from U.P., he was rightly treated by the petitioner as an outsider OBC candidate and was, therefore, not eligible to be appointed under the OBC category in Delhi. In support of her aforesaid submission, Ms.Ahlawat relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in MCD vs. Veena & Ors., [(2001) 6 SCC 571] to contend that upon the migration of a person belonging to the OBC category from the State of his origin to a different State where his caste is not included in the OBC list, he would be entitled to the benefits or concessions made available to his category in his State of origin, and not in the State to where he has migrated.
5. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order.
W.P.(C) 2074/2019 Page 3 of 5
6. The admitted position which has emerged from the record is that the respondent was not only born and brought up, but he had also received all his education in the GNCT of Delhi. Further, he belongs to the Jat community which has been duly recognised as an OBC by the GNCTD. Merely because he was issued his initial OBC category certificate by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, North District, Delhi on the basis of the certificate issued to his father by the Tehsildar, Budhana, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.), it cannot at all be said that the petitioner is an outsider OBC. Evidently, the respondent is a permanent resident of Delhi and the Revenue Department of the GNCTD had, while issuing the OBC certificate to him, categorically stated that he belonged to the Jat community which has been recognised as a backward class by the GNCTD vide its notification dated 20.01.1995. In these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate as to why the respondent should not be treated as being eligible for applying under the OBC category for a post under the GNCTD, when the community to which he belongs has been duly recognised as an OBC category by the GNCTD, and he is an ordinary resident of GNCT of Delhi. The factum of the respondent's OBC category status being based on a caste certificate issued to his father by the state government of U.P., cannot be used to deny the respondent of the benefits made available to the OBC category within the territory of Delhi, once it is admitted that the Jat community is also recognized as a backward community by the GNCTD.
7. We have also considered the decision in Veena (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and find that the same
W.P.(C) 2074/2019 Page 4 of 5 is, in fact, at odds with the submissions of the petitioners. In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of candidates belonging to castes which were treated as OBC in their parent State but were not recognised as OBC in GNCTD and, therefore, it held that the said candidates could not be treated as OBC candidates in GNCTD. In the present case, however, it is an admitted position that the Jat community-to which the respondent belongs, has been duly recognised as a backward class by the GNCTD, as well. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason as to why the respondent should not be treated as an OBC category candidate by the GNCTD.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition, being meritless, is dismissed.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE
(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2019 gm
W.P.(C) 2074/2019 Page 5 of 5
