Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul has quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed appointment under the OBC category. The Court held that the OBC certificate submitted by the candidate did not conform to the criteria specified in the recruitment advertisement. Accordingly, the Tribunal's direction to grant appointment and consequential benefits was set aside. The Court further clarified that any monetary benefits already received pursuant to the Tribunal's order would not be recoverable.

The writ petitions arose from decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 8 December 2023 and 10 October 2023 in separate Original Applications filed by two individuals. As the underlying issue in both matters was similar, the High Court heard them together and delivered a consolidated judgment.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds In-Charge SHO Competent To Conduct NDPS Search | High Court Manifestly Erred In Interpreting Section 42 Of The Act | Trial Directed To Continue Expeditiously

One of the respondents, Jyoti, belongs to the Nai community. According to the Original Application filed before the Tribunal, her community is recognised as an Other Backward Class (OBC) in Delhi through various resolutions dated 24 May 1995, 19 June 2003, and 17 February 2014. Her caste appears at serial number 43 in the list of castes notified as OBCs by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).

Jyoti was issued two OBC certificates: one dated 2 January 2013 and another dated 12 July 2017. The first was issued by the Deputy Commissioner (South West District), Delhi, stating that she belonged to the Nai community recognised as an OBC. The certificate was based on an earlier certificate issued to her father in Uttar Pradesh. It certified that she did not belong to the creamy layer.

The second certificate was issued by the District Magistrate, Dwarka, South West District, Delhi for the purpose of applying for appointment under the Government of India. This certificate also noted her as a non-creamy layer OBC and was based on the earlier 2013 certificate.

On 5 July 2018, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued Advertisement No. 02/2018 inviting applications for posts under the Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Services Department of the GNCTD. The advertisement included detailed stipulations regarding reservation benefits.

Specifically, Clause 5 of the Advertisement stated that only OBC (Delhi) candidates would be given the benefit of reservation. It specified that two types of OBC certificates would be accepted: (i) one issued by the Revenue Department of GNCTD based on an old certificate issued to a family member by GNCTD; and (ii) one issued by a competent authority outside Delhi, based on a GNCTD-issued OBC certificate to a family member who had been residing in Delhi before 8 September 1993.

Jyoti applied for the post as an OBC candidate and submitted the 2013 certificate. She qualified in both Tier I and Tier II examinations and uploaded the required documents as instructed.

The final result, published in three notices dated 17 June 2021, 23 February 2022, and 29 April 2022, selected 102 OBC candidates. Jyoti's score exceeded the cut-off for the last list but her name did not appear among the selected candidates. The notice dated 29 April 2022 indicated that her candidature had been rejected because her OBC certificate did not satisfy the requirements of Clause 5 of the advertisement. The rejection was based on the fact that the certificate was issued on the basis of a certificate issued to her father by the UP authorities, and not by GNCTD.

Aggrieved, Jyoti filed OA 1538/2022 before the Tribunal, contending that she had valid OBC certificates issued by GNCTD authorities and therefore her candidature should have been accepted.

In response, DSSSB contended that her certificate did not qualify under Clause 5 since it was not issued on the basis of an old certificate from GNCTD, but rather one from the State of UP. Therefore, she did not fulfil the eligibility for OBC reservation under the terms of the recruitment advertisement.

The Tribunal relied on the decision in GNCTD v Rishabh Malik and its own earlier decision in Hemant Kumar v GNCTD to allow the application. It directed that Jyoti be appointed and granted notional benefits from the date of appointment of her immediate junior.

In a similar matter, Nisha had applied for a post advertised under Advertisement No. 01/13. She submitted an OBC certificate dated 6 February 2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (North West District), Delhi. The certificate was based on an earlier certificate issued to her father in Bulandshahr, UP. The authorities rejected her candidature on similar grounds.

She filed OA 472/2019 before the Tribunal, which was allowed based on the High Court's judgment in GNCTD v Anjana. The Tribunal directed that she be treated as an OBC candidate and granted appointment accordingly.

GNCTD challenged both decisions before the High Court in WP(C) 10587/2024 and WP(C) 373/2024, respectively.

The High Court examined the factual matrix and applicable recruitment advertisements in both cases. In Jyoti’s case, the Court recorded: "It cannot, therefore, be said that Jyoti was in possession of an OBC certificate which conforms to Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice, as would entitle her to the benefit of her OBC status in the matter of recruitment following the said Vacancy Notice."

The Court noted that the 2013 certificate was issued on the basis of an OBC certificate granted to her father in Uttar Pradesh. This did not satisfy Clause 5(iv)(A), which required the certificate to be issued on the basis of an old certificate issued by GNCTD.

"Clause 5(iv)(A) required the OBC certificate, if issued by the Revenue Department of the GNCTD, to have been issued on the basis of an old certificate issued to any member of the individual’s family from the GNCTD."

The Court held that the Tribunal’s reliance on Rishabh Malik was misplaced. It observed: "There is nothing, in the judgment in Rishabh Malik, to indicate that the advertisement or notification under consideration in that case contained a stipulation to the effect that the OBC certificate produced by the candidate had to have been issued on the basis of an OBC certificate issued to the candidates near relative by the GNCTD."

Regarding the 2022 certificate subsequently obtained by Jyoti, the Court stated: "Even this certificate does not conform to Clause 5 of the Vacancy Notice, as it does not purport to have been issued on the basis of any old OBC certificate issued to any member of the respondent’s family by the GNCTD."

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Government of NCT of Delhi v Priyanka, which involved identical facts and legal stipulations. It concluded that the DSSSB was justified in cancelling Jyoti’s candidature.

In Nisha’s case, the Court distinguished the applicable advertisement. Clause 6 of Advertisement No. 01/13 did not impose the same strict requirements as Clause 5 in Jyoti’s case. The OBC certificate submitted by Nisha was issued by Delhi authorities and conformed to the prescribed format.

"There is no reason, therefore, for the respondent not to be entitled to the benefit of OBC reservation on the basis of the said certificate."

The Court rejected the petitioners’ attempt to rely on subsequent circulars and notifications not forming part of the original advertisement.

"The DSSSB can obviously not seek to apply, to an Advertisement issued in 2013, conditions which were incorporated by the Services Circular dated 28 July 2016."

It also declined to treat Nisha as a migrant solely because the 2014 certificate was based on a UP-issued document to her father, noting: "The mere fact that it has been issued on the basis of the OBC certificate issued to the respondent’s father in UP does not deviate from the earlier recitals in the Certificate."

The Court quashed the judgment dated 8 December 2023 passed by the Tribunal in OA 1538/2022. It declared: "OA 1538/2022 filed by the respondent before the Tribunal shall stand dismissed."

However, it added: "We clarify, however, that if consequent to the passing of the impugned judgment dated 8 December 2023, the respondent has secured appointment and any payment has been made to her consequent thereto, no recovery from the respondent shall be effected."

Also Read: Clubbing Stay Of Employee At Different Postings For Transfer Purposes | Doesn't Violate Definition Of Transfer Under State Rules | Himachal Pradesh High Court

In respect of Nisha’s case, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s judgment: "The impugned judgment dated 10 October 2023, passed by the Tribunal, is, therefore, affirmed in its entirety."

"The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with no orders as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj and Mr. Maria Mugesh Kannan, Advocates (in WP(C) 373/2024); Mr. Pardeep Dahiya and Ms. Mahima Benipuri, Advocates (in WP(C) 10587/2024)

Case Title: Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors v Nisha; Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr v Jyoti

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5038-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 373/2024 and W.P.(C) 10587/2024

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul