ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The counsel in both the Applications is the same and he also suggests likewise. The bare minimum facts that, however, need necessary mention, have been extracted from OA No. 630/2008 in the matter of Surender Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board. The Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash order dated 30.1.2008 whereby, as per the case set up by the applicant, he has been declared ineligible for the post of Fire Operator on the ground that the OBC certificate furnished by him has been issued by authorities outside Delhi and not from Delhi. In consequence of setting aside the order aforesaid, the applicant seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to undergo the fitness test and protect his seniority in case of any delay occasioned, by giving him fictional promotion as from the date his junior has been appointed.
2. The facts on which the reliefs aforesaid are sought to rest, reveal that the respondent – Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an advertisement in the columns of frontline dailies for recruitment, among others, to the post of Fire Operator in Delhi Fire Service in the month of February, 2007, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-I with the Application. The advertisement, inter alia mentioned a total of 835 posts, out of which 225 posts were reserved for the OBC candidates. The applicant claims to be belonging to OBC. It is his case that the advertisement did not impose any condition as to the OBC certificate being only from competent authority from Delhi. The application made by the applicant was entertained and he qualified the written test under roll number 15113171 as reported in the Nav Bharat Times dated 14.7.2007. On the basis of his having qualified the written test, he was issued admit card for undergoing driving test. He underwent the driving test held on 29.11.2007. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent withheld the result of the driving test and strained his anxiety and patience, which compelled him to seek information under the Right to Information Act, to which the respondent replied vide its letter dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure-V) refusing to disclose the result of the driving test and further stating that candidates possessing OBC certificates from outside Delhi were not eligible for the post applied for.
3. Shri Rustagi, the learned Counsel representing the applicant, contends that there was no condition as to the OBC certificate being only from Delhi and not from outside Delhi, and had it been so, there was hardly any necessity of subjecting the applicant to the rigmarole of submitting his application for the post and for undergoing the written and driving tests, and that the Lt. Governor has no power under Article 16(3) of the Constitution, which power is vested only in the Parliament and it is not the case of the respondent that there is any Act of Parliament to that effect.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examined the records of the case. In the context of facts and circumstances of this case, we, however, find no merit in either of the contentions of the learned Counsel as noted above. The applicant, it clearly appears to us, has only annexed a part of the advertisement at Annexure-I. The same has been mentioned as if it consists of three pages (9-11), so mentioned in Annexure-I itself. However, it is only page number 9 which has been annexed. We have, through Court Master, made available to ourselves a complete advertisement which consists of 19 pages. The same is with regard to number of posts like JE (Civil), MCD; JE (Civil), Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board; JE (Civil), Delhi Jal Board; JE (Civil), Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited; JE (Electrical), Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board; JE (Electrical) Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology; JE (Electrical & Mechanical), Delhi Jal Board; JE (Mechanical), Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board; Teacher (Primary) in MCD; Driver, Delhi Transport Corporation; Fire Operator, Delhi Fire Service; and Assistant Ambulance Officer, CATS. At page 4 under caption ‘Candidates are required to submit legible attested copies of the following documents’, at serial number (iv) it is provided that certificates with regard to caste/category/disability/ex-serviceman/widow/government employee should be on the prescribed form, issued by the competent authorities, if claiming benefit under any of the above categories. At page 15-16 under caption ‘General instructions and procedure for submission of application form’, dealing with reservation benefits, has been mentioned as follows:
1. Reservation benefits will be available to the candidates in accordance with the instructions/orders/circulars, issued from time to time by the Competent/Notified Authorities.
2. Important: Candidates who wish to be considered against reserved vacancies and/or to seek age relaxation, must submit duly attested copies of relevant certificates issued by competent/notified authority (in prescribed format) along with their application, otherwise, their claim for SC/ST/OBC/Physically Handicapped/Ex-Servicemen category will not be entertained and their applications will be considered against Un-reserved (UR) category vacancies.
5. It is not the case of the applicant that he is an OBC in the State of Delhi. He has not even chosen to mention as to how he is OBC, from which State and who issued the certificate of his belonging to OBC category. He has not even chosen to annex a certificate showing that he belongs to OBC. During the course of arguments, however, the counsel stated that the applicant is an OBC from State of Uttar Pradesh. It is by now too well settled a proposition of law that a reserved category eligible to apply in the said category may be so in a particular State and not so in another State, and that being so, the advantage of reserved category can be taken only in the State where it is so notified. To illustrate, a particular caste which may be notified as an OBC in the State of West Bengal may be an open category in the State of Delhi. The applicant applied under the Right to Information Act to seek the following information:
Please give the applicant’s marks obtained in driving test (F.O.) (Code 015). Also give marks obtained by the last selected candidate.
The reply obtained by the applicant is as follows:
As per order of Delhi Govt. only those candidates will be treated eligible, who will attach with their applications OBC certificate issued by competent authorities of Delhi Govt. Since the OBC certificate submitted by you has been issued by officer of place outside Delhi, you are ineligible for selection from OBC category. Since the final result has not been declared, it is not possible to give details of marks obtained.
6. The mere fact that the respondent Board entertained the application of the applicant would not show that he was entitled to be considered under OBC category. The application could not be rejected, inasmuch as if the applicant is not possessing OBC certificate issued by competent authority from Delhi, his candidature has still to be considered under the general category. The mere fact, therefore, that the applicant was allowed to appear in the written and driving tests would not show that he is eligible for appointment under reserved category OBC. The result has not been declared so far. The applicant may still be selected and appointed in the general category.
7. Insofar as, the second contention of the learned Counsel, as noted above, is concerned, no averments have been made to show that the Lt. Governor had issued any order under Article 16(3) of the Constitution with regard to a particular caste being OBC in the State of Delhi. A general allegation that it is not within the domain of the Lt. Governor under Article 16(3) to issue such orders and that only Parliament can do so, would not advance the case of the applicant.
8. Finding no merit in these Applications, we dismiss the same in limine.