Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE    

         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1691 OF 2016

(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.27550 of 2012) RAM KUMAR GIJROYA                   …………APPELLANT

Vs DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES  SELECTION BOARD & ANR.                ………RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1692 OF 2016

(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.27551 of 2012) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1693 OF 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.309 of 2013)

AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.1694 OF 2016

(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.21445 of 2013)

  J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

   Leave granted.

2.  The  present  appeals  arise  out  of  the  impugned  common judgment and order dated 24.01.2012 passed by

Page 2

2

the  High  Court  of  Delhi  in  Letters  Patent  Appeal  

No.562 of 2011 and Writ Petition (C) No. 8087 of 2011  

whereby  the  High  Court  set  aside  the  judgment  and  

order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition (C)  

No. 382 of 2009, wherein the learned single Judge had  

allowed  the  Writ  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

Page 3

3

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 was 21.01.2008.  

The appellant submitted his application form before  

the due date and was subsequently issued the admit  

card to appear in the examination. Having appeared in  

the  examination,  he  was  shortlisted  for  selection.  

However, his name did not appear in the final list of  

selected candidates. On enquiry, he was informed by  

the concerned official that he was not selected to  

the post for the reason that he had failed to submit  

the  OBC  certificate  issued  by  the  appropriate

Page 4

4

authority along with application form before the last  

date of submission of application form.

5.   Aggrieved of the action of respondent-DSSSB, the  appellant, along with the other aggrieved candidates,  

filed  Writ  Petition(C)  No.382  of  2009  before  the  

learned  single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Delhi,  

seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding  

the respondent-DSSSB to accept the OBC certificates  

submitted  by  them  after  the  cut  off  date  for  

selection  to  the  post  of  Staff  Nurse  in  the  

Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government  

of NCT of Delhi as provided in the advertisement. The  

appellant  relied  on  the  judgment  dated  11.02.2009  

passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 9112 of 2008 by the  

High  Court  of  Delhi  in  the  case  of  Pushpa  v.  

Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., whereby the High  

Court had granted O.B.C. benefit to the petitioners  

therein.

Page 5

5

6. The  learned  single  Judge  disposed  of  the  writ  petition  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  24.11.2010,  

placing  reliance  on  the  judgment  in  the  case  of  

Pushpa  (supra),  wherein  the  controversy  centred  

around the same advertisement/Notification issued by  

the  same  respondent.  The  learned  single  Judge  

observed  that  the  only  ground  for  declining  the  

applications  filed  by  the  appellants  was  that  the  

O.B.C.  certificates  had  been  issued  and  submitted  

after the cut off date and therefore they were not  

eligible  for  appointment  to  the  post.  The  learned  

single Judge further held that the respondent did not  

cite any other authority to distinguish the decision  

in  Pushpa’s  case  (supra)  from  the  facts  of  the  

present case. Consequently, the learned single Judge  

disposed  of  the  writ  petition  and  directed  the  

respondent  to  reconsider  the  application  of  the  

appellant and the other aggrieved candidates against  

the O.B.C. category within a period of one month.

Page 6

6

7. Aggrieved, the respondent-DSSSB filed Letters Patent  Appeal No. 562 of 2011 before the Division Bench 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.

Page 7

7

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  

application  was  introduced  by  the  respondent-DSSSB  

only  while  declaring  the  result  on  15.12.2008,  

holding  that  the  appellant  was  not  eligible  for  

selection of the post of Staff Nurse as the O.B.C.  

certificate  was  received  after  cut-off  date.  The  

learned  counsel  contends  that  the  stand  of  

respondent-DSSSB  is  arbitrary,  illegal  and  

unreasonable  and  is  also  contrary  to  the  settled  

proposition  of  law  and  guidelines  issued  on  

reservation and concession for candidates belonging  

to  the  reserved  categories.  The  learned  counsel  

places reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High  

Court in the case of Tej Pal Singh & Ors. v. Govt. Of

Page 8

8

NCT of Delhi1, wherein it was categorically held by  

the  High  Court  that  the  petitioners  therein  were  

entitled to submit such certificates even after the  

cut-off date fixed by the advertisement.

9.The learned counsel further contends that this Court  in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.  

v.  Uma  Devi  (3)  &  Ors.2 and  Delhi  Transport  

Corporation  v.  D.T.C.  Mazdoor  Congress  &  Ors.3 has  

held that the State is meant to be a model employer  

and  must  give  due  importance  to  the  fundamental  

rights of equality and opportunity in the matter of  

public appointment guaranteed under Articles 14 and  

16 of the Constitution of India.  

10. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned  Solicitor  General  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent-DSSSB  sought  to  justify  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  contending  that  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  does  not  suffer  from  any  1  ILR 2001 Delhi 298 2 (2006) 4 SCC 1 3 1991 Supp(1) SCC 600

Page 9

9

illegality and need not be interfered with by this  

Court.

11. The learned Solicitor General further contends that  the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in  

not  allowing  the  appellant  to  submit  the  O.B.C.  

certificate  after  the  cut-off  date  fixed  in  the  

advertisement as the appellant had failed to submit  

the required certificate for availing the benefit of  

reservation within the stipulated time and thus, he  

had waived of his right for being considered under  

the reserved category.  

12. It is further contended by the learned Solicitor  General that no substantial question of law arises in  

the present appeal to invoke the jurisdiction of this  

Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

13. After  hearing  both  the  parties  at  length  and  perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by  

the Division Bench of the High Court, we are of the

Page 10

10

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 India4  as well as  Valsamma Paul  v. Cochin  

University & Ors.5 The learned single Judge in the  

case  of  Pushpa  (supra) also  considered  another  

4 1992 (Supp) 3 SCC 217 5 (1996) 3 SCC 545

Page 11

11

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  belonged  to  the  S.C.  and  S.T.  

categories could not be rejected simply on account of  

the late submission of caste certificate.

 The  relevant  paragraph  from  the  judgment  of  this  

Court in the case of  Indra Sawhney (supra) has been  

extracted in the case of  Pushpa (supra) along with  

the  speech  delivered  by  Dr.  Ambedkar  in  the  

constituent assembly and reads thus :-

    “9….. xxx             xxx                xxx

251. Referring to the concept of equality of  opportunity  in  public  employment,  as  embodied  in  Article  10  of  the  draft  Constitution,  which  finally  emerged  as  Article  16  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  conflicting  claims  of  various  communities  for representation in public administration,  Dr  Ambedkar  emphatically  declared  that  reservation  should  be  confined  to  ‘a  minority of seats’, lest the very concept of  equality should be destroyed. In view of its

Page 12

12

great  importance,  the  full  text  of  his  speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly  on the point is appended to this judgment.  But I shall now read a few passages from it.  Dr Ambedkar stated:

“…  firstly,  that  there  shall  be  equality  of  opportunity,  secondly,  that there shall be reservations in  favour  of  certain  communities  which  have not so far had a ‘proper look- in’ so to say into the administration  …. Supposing, for instance, we were  to  concede  in  full  the  demand  of  those communities who have not been  so  far  employed  in  the  public  services to the fullest extent, what  would really happen is, we shall be  completely  destroying  the  first  proposition  upon  which  we  are  all  agreed, namely, that there shall be  an  equality  of  opportunity  ….  Therefore the seats to be reserved,  if  the  reservation  is  to  be  consistent  with  sub-clause  (1)  of  Article  10,  must  be  confined  to  a  minority  of  seats.  It  is  then  only  that the first principle could find  its  place  in  the  Constitution  and  effective in operation … we have to  safeguard  two  things,  namely,  the  principle of equality of opportunity  and  at  the  same  time  satisfy  the  demand of communities which have not  had  so  far  representation  in  the  State,  …”.  Constituent  Assembly  Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-702 (1948- 49).  

These  words  embody  the  raison  d’etre of

Page 13

13

reservation and its limitations. Reservation  is  one  of  the  measures  adopted  by  the  Constitution  to  remedy  the  continuing  evil  effects  of  prior  inequities  stemming  from  discriminatory  practices  against  various  classes  of  people  which  have  resulted  in  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         xxx           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

Page 14

14

person is SC his is so by birth and not by  acquisition of this category because of any  other event happening at a later stage. A  certificate issued by competent authority to  this effect is only an affirmation of fact  which is already in existence. The purpose  of  such  certificate  is  to  enable  the  authorities to believe in the assertion of  the  candidate  that  he  belongs  to  'SC'  category  and  act  thereon  by  giving  the  benefit to such candidate for his belonging  to 'SC' category. It is not that petitioners  did  not  belong  to  'SC'  category  prior  to  30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status  of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance  of  the  certificate.  In  view  of  this  position, necessitating upon a certificate  dated  prior  to  30th  June,  1998  would  be  clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale  objective sought to be achieved.

18. While taking a particular view in such  matters  one  has  to  keep  in  mind  the  objectives  behind  the  post  of  SC  and  ST  categories  as  per  constitutional  mandate  prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which  are  enabling  provisions  authorising  the  Government  to  make  special  provisions  for  the  persons  of  SC  and  ST  categories.  Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend  to remove social and economic inequality to  make  equal  opportunities  available  in  reality. Social and economic justice is a  right enshrined for protection of society.  The  right  in  social  and  economic  justice

Page 15

15

envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in  the  Fundamental  Rights  and  Directive  Principles  of  the  Constitution,  in  particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and  46 are to make the quality of the life of  the  poor,  disadvantaged  and  disabled  citizens of the society meaningful.”

Further,  in  the  case  of  Pushpa  (supra),  relevant  

portion  from  the  judgment  of  Valsamma  Paul’s  case  

(supra) has also been extracted, which reads as under:-

“21. The Constitution through its Preamble,  Fundamental  Rights  and  Directive  Principles  created  a  secular  State  based  on  the  principle of equality and non-discrimination,  striking a balance between the rights of the  individuals  and  the  duty  and  commitment  of  the State to establish an egalitarian social  order.”

16. In our considered view, the decision rendered in  the case of Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the  

position of law laid down by this Court, which have  

been  referred  to  supra.  The  Division  Bench  of  the  

High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order

Page 16

16

passed by the learned single Judge, without 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

Page 17

17

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 binding precedent of  

the judgments of this Court in the cases of  Indra  

Sawhney and  Valsamma  Paul  (supra).  Therefore,  the  

impugned judgment and order passed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and  

accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated  

24.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.  

(C) No. 382 of 2009 is hereby restored.

 17. The appeals are allowed. No costs.  

  ……………………………………………CJI.         [T.S. THAKUR]

                              …………………………………………………J.                                [V. GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, February 24, 2016  

Page 18

18

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment        COURT NO.9               SECTION XIV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).1691/2016 @ SLP(C) No(s). 27550/2012 RAM KUMAR GIJROYA                                  Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS DELHI SUB. SERVICES SELECTION BD. & ANR.           Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal  No(s).1692/2016 @ SLP(C) No(s). 27551/2012 Civil Appeal  No(s).1693/2016 @ SLP(C) No(s). 309/2013 Civil Appeal  No(s).1694/2016 @ SLP(C) No(s). 21445/2013   Date : 24/02/2016 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today. For Appellant(s)                      Mr. R. C. Kaushik,Adv.                                            Mr. Piyush Sharma,Adv.                      Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. For Respondent(s)                      Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv.                    

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  Hon'ble  the  Chief  Justice and His Lordship.

Leave granted. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed  Non-

Reportable Judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

 (VINOD KUMAR) COURT MASTER

(MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER

(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)