9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Petition and directed the Respondents to accept the O.B.C. certificate of the Appellants herein. 3. The important question of law to be decided in these appeals is 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. 4. As the question of law arising in all these appeals is similar, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 27550 of 2012, which has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2012, The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: The Respondent-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "the DSSSB") invited applications for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi by way of publishing an Advertisement No. 09/2007 in the Newspaper. The last date of submission of the application form in the advertisement for the said post wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Delhi High Court. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 24.01.2012 held that the Appellant had applied for the O.B.C. certificate ten days before the cut off date, which was not the same as in Pushpa's case (supra). In the case of Pushpa, the application for the O.B.C. certificate had been filed much before the date of advertisement. It was observed that the advertisement in the present case was published on 30.08.2007 and the last date of submission of the application form was 21.01.2008 and the Appellant herein applied for O.B.C. certificate only ten days prior to the cut off date and hence, no case for grant of relief in favour of the Appellant was made out. The High Court, thus, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Respondent-DSSSB. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Mr. R.C. Kaushik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contends that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in not giving the opportunity to the Appellant to submit the O.B.C. certificate after the cut-off date of the application. The requirement of submitting the O.B.C. certificate before the cut-off date of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court, we are of the view that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. We record our reasons hereunder. 14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra). 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 (Supp) 3 SCC 217 as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Ors. : (1996) 3 SCC 545 The learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) also considered another judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra), wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, in so far as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal. 15. In the case of Pushpa (supra), relevant paragraphs from the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra) have also been extracted, which read thus: 11.... xxx 17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 (supra) 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. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
