2016 (2) TMI 1357 - SC - Indian Laws

Selection to the post under O.B.C. category - whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the O.B.C. category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the O.B.C. category or not? HELD THAT - The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa 2009 (2) TMI 923 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In that case the learned single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the Petitioners therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category. The learned single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (11) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Ors. 1996 (1) TMI 484 - SUPREME COURT . The decision rendered in the case of Pushpa is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14 15 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14 15 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of a candidate submitting an O.B.C. certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement.
2. Interpretation of reservation policies and guidelines for candidates belonging to reserved categories.
3. Legality of the High Court's decision to set aside the single Judge's order based on the timing of O.B.C. certificate submission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of a Candidate Submitting an O.B.C. Certificate After the Last Date:
The core issue was whether a candidate who appears for an examination under the O.B.C. category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection under the O.B.C. category. The appellant had submitted his application form before the due date and was issued an admit card. Despite being shortlisted, he was not selected because he failed to submit the O.B.C. certificate by the cut-off date. The learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to accept the O.B.C. certificate submitted after the cut-off date, relying on the High Court's decision in Pushpa v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside this order, emphasizing that the appellant applied for the O.B.C. certificate only ten days before the cut-off date, unlike in Pushpa's case where the application was made much earlier.

2. Interpretation of Reservation Policies and Guidelines:
The appellant argued that the requirement to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the cut-off date was introduced only when the results were declared, which was arbitrary, illegal, and unreasonable. The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Tej Pal Singh and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which allowed submission of certificates even after the cut-off date. The Supreme Court noted that the learned single Judge had correctly interpreted the reservation policies in light of the decisions in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Ors., which emphasized the constitutional mandate to provide equal opportunities to socially and educationally backward classes.

3. Legality of the High Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench erred in not considering the decision in Pushpa's case, which allowed submission of the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published. The learned single Judge's decision was in line with the constitutional principles of reservation aimed at providing equal opportunities to disadvantaged sections. The Division Bench's reversal of this decision was deemed erroneous as it failed to follow binding precedents and the constitutional mandate of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 39A, which aim to remove inequality in public employment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the learned single Judge's order. The decision in Pushpa's case was consistent with the constitutional principles and binding precedents. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench were set aside, and the judgment of the learned single Judge was restored. The appeals were allowed with no costs.