*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2420/2011
V. MARY AJITHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Subhash Mohanty, Advocate
Versus
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. H.S. Sachdeva, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The respondent DSSSB had in the year 2009 advertised for various
posts in the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD). The petitioner
claiming to be in the OBC category claims to have applied for the post of
Staff Nurse (Female). It is the case of the petitioner that despite securing
more marks than the last candidate in the OBC category, recommended for
appointment to the said post, the petitioner has not been so selected.
W.P.(C)2420/2011 Page 1 of 4
2. A perusal of the advertisement at pages 16 & 24 of the paper book
shows that the OBC candidates “seeking benefit of reservation were
required to submit OBC certificate issued by the competent authority of the
GNCTD” along with their application forms. The petitioner admittedly did
not submit the OBC certificate issued by the competent authority of the
GNCTD and on the contrary submitted an OBC certificate issued by the
competent authority of Tamil Nadu. Though the petitioner claims to have
now applied to the competent authority of the GNCTD for the said
certificate but the counsel for the petitioner states that the same has not
been issued as yet.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has with reference to the application
form which also required it to be stated whether the applicant was from
Delhi or an outsider, sought to contend that once the applications were
invited from those belonging to outside Delhi also, the OBC certificate
issued by competent authority of the government of Tamil Nadu ought to
have been accepted.
4. There is no merit in the said contention. The language as aforesaid
of the advertisement inviting applications is quite clear. For the applicants
applying in the reserved category, the requirement was of submitting the
OBC certificate issued by the competent authority of the GNCTD and not
of any other place or State. The question is no longer res integra having
been subject matter of Subhash Chandra Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (2009) 15 SCC 458.
W.P.(C)2420/2011 Page 2 of 4
5. The counsel for the petitioner has next sought to rely upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hari Singh Vs. Staff
Selection Commission 2010 V AD (Delhi) 599. In that case however the
terms had been relaxed and time had been given to produce the OBC
certificate. There is no such plea in the present case.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgments
cited at page 7 and 8 of the writ petition. However, in the present case the
language of the advertisement inviting applications being clear and the
petitioner having admittedly not complied therewith, the said judgments
would not apply.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has lastly referred to the undertaking,
draft form whereof is at page 42 of the paper book, which the applicants
were required to furnish. The reference to the said form/undertaking is
contained at page 24 of the paper book, where it is provided that
candidates seeking reservation as OBC have to submit a declaration in the
prescribed format that he / she does not belong to the creamy layer on the
crucial date, in addition to the community certificate. The counsel for the
petitioner has sought to contend that the said undertaking was a substitute
for the OBC certificate from the competent authority of the GNCTD.
W.P.(C)2420/2011 Page 3 of 4
8. The said argument cannot be accepted; as apparent from page 24 of
the paper book, that undertaking was only required for the purpose of not
belonging to the creamy layer on the crucial date, and was not intended to
be a substitute for an OBC certificate issued by the competent authority of
the GNCTD.
There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
CM No.5145/2011 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 10, 2011
„gsr‟
W.P.(C)2420/2011 Page 4 of 4