Union of India &
Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh & ANR.  INSC 923 (8 May 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3409 OF 2009 (Arising out
of S.L.P.(C) No.19321 of 2005) Union of India & Ors. ..........Appellants
Versus Dalbir Singh & Anr. ........Respondents
appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a
judgment and order of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in
Civil Writ Petition No. 6481 - CAT of 2005 dated April 25, 2005, affirming the
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A.
No. 86-HR of 2003 dated May 22, 2004.
short question is, whether the Administrative Tribunal is justified in
directing the appellants to appoint Respondent No. 1 as a selected candidate in
the general category even though he had not applied under that category.
appellants advertised in the News Paper for selection to 20 vacant posts of
Mazdoor both in general and reserved category.
Respondent No. 1
applied for selection in the reserved (OBC) category and had annexed his OBC
certificate dated 4.5.1997. A separate Board Proceedings was prepared for the
candidates who had claimed concession on the basis of OBC certificate and name
of the respondent No. 1 was also in the said proceedings. Since the permanent
address furnished in the application was different and the OBC certificate
furnished was from the different State; the authenticity of the said document
was sought from the issuing authority. It was intimated by SDO(C), Ambala, vide
their letter dated 11.7.2000 that the said certificate was not issued by their
office. The same was informed to respondent No.1, and thereafter, he produced
another certificate dated 14.8.2000 issued by SDO(C), Ambala in which a new
address was given and the respondent No.1 was shown to be in OBC category on
account of his being of the `Saini' caste and later on it was found that
`Saini' caste was not 2 in the OBC category in Punjab State. In view of this
discrepancy in the caste certificate produced, the candidature of respondent
No.1 came to be rejected by the appellants and, accordingly, no letter of
appointment was issued to respondent No. 1.
by the action of the appellants, contesting respondent filed O.A. No. 86 of
2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, seeking a
direction that he be provided employment for the post of Mazdoor with all
consequential benefits either by including his name in the list of candidates
prepared for general category and, in the alternative, to direct the
respondents therein to accept the OBC certificate issued by SDO(C), Ambala
appellants in their written objections while traversing all the assertions and
allegations made by the applicant, had stated that separate Board Proceedings
had been prepared for candidates who had claimed concessions on the basis of
OBC category and the applicant having opted to be considered under the OBC
category, he was expected to produce the genuine certificate issued by the
competent authority. They had also stated that, to fill up the vacancies of
Mazdoors, an advertisement had been issued separately for general and OBC categories
and pursuant to such advertisement, the applicant had applied against OBC
category and not under general category and, therefore, his name was not
considered under general category.
Administrative Tribunal while accepting the assertion made by the appellants
regarding the non-suitability of the certificates furnished by the respondent
herein, still directed the appellants to issue letter of appointment to the
respondent by considering his candidature in the general category as he had
scored more marks then one of the candidate in the general category.
this decision, the appellants had carried the matter by way of writ petition
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide its order
dated 28.4.2005 had dismissed the writ petition.
substantial point that requires consideration in the appeal is, whether the
Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to give appointment to
respondent No.1 under general category on the basis of marks obtained by him,
even if it requires replacing of a last candidate in the selected general
proper determination of the question, it would be convenient, first of all to
refer to the advertisement/Employment Notice issued by the appellants inviting
applications to fill up vacant posts of 4 Mazdoors in Suranasi, Jalandhar. In
the employment notice there is a mention of number of posts available in
general category and other backward classes (OBC category).
to the aforesaid employment notice, respondent No.1, filed his application to
consider his case under OBC category. In support of his claim, he had produced
caste certificate. It so happens that the certificate produced was found to be
This has resulted in
not enlisting his name in the select list.
Respondent at no
point of time had claimed before the authorities that if for any reason, his
case cannot be considered under OBC category; at least the appellants should
consider his case under the general merit list. From the pleadings, it appears
to us, that the appellants had prepared two sets of lists. The first one being
the list of those candidates who had staked their claim in the general merit
and the second list contains those candidates who had opted for consideration
of their case under OBC category. The respondent at no point of time had taken
exception to the procedure adopted by the appellants in preparing the select
list. In our opinion, having opted to consider his case only under OBC
category, he cannot thereafter claim that his case requires to be considered in
the general merit, only because, he has scored better percentage of marks than
the last selected candidate in the general merit. In our considered view, the
Administrative Tribunal having found that the appellants were justified in not
considering the respondent's case for appointment under OBC category, ought not
to have directed the appellants to consider his claim under general category.
the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their
[ H.L. DATTU ]