All India Institute Of Medical Sciences & Anr. vs Vinod Kumar Vishwakarma

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2314/2023, CM APPL. 8766/2023

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
& ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Panel Counsel
with Ms. Sweety Singh, Mr. Rahul Pandey
and Ms. Meenakshi, Advocates.

versus

VINOD KUMAR VISHWAKARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
% 10.04.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1
1. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences issued an
advertisement in 2020 inviting applications for recruitment to various
posts. The respondent applied for recruitment to the post of Operation
Theatre Assistant as a candidate belonging to the Other Backward
2
Classes . In respect of the certificate, certifying a candidate to belong
to the OBC, the Advertisement provided as under:


1
"AIIMS" hereinafter
2
"OBC" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 1 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

“9. Candidates applying under any of the reserved category viz.
SC/ST/OBC will be considered subject to submission of valid
Caste certificate on a prescribed format issued by the competent
authority. The vacancies are being advertised in financial year
3
2019-2020, therefore, valid NCL-OBC certificate issued during
the period from 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2020 will be considered valid.
Candidature who have NCL-OBC certificate issued before or after
this period (i.e 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2020), will not be considered valid
for this advertisement. Candidates applying under OBC category
must produce the valid caste certificate in the format provided by
the DoP&T vide O.M. No. 36036/2/2013-Estt. (Res.) dated
30.05.2014 and further clarification issued by DoP&T OM No.
36036/2/2013-Estt(Res-l) dated 31.03.2016. Certificate must be
valid for employment in Central Government Institutions. OBC
candidate's eligibility will be based on Castes borne in the Central
List of Govt. of India. Their Sub-caste should also match with the
entries in Central List of OBC, failing which their candidature as
OBC candidate will not be considered. They will however be
treated as UR candidate. The OBC certificate should clearly show
that the applicant does not belong to the Creamy Layer.”
(Emphasis supplied)

2. The respondent is in possession of two OBC certificates, one of
which has been issued before 1 April 2019 and the other after 31 Mrch
2020. Neither certificate, therefore, has been issued between 1 April
2019 and 31 March 2020, as required by the Advertisement. Despite
his succeeding in the various rounds of selection, therefore, no
appointment order was issued to the respondent.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent moved the Central
4
Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 1712/2022. By judgment
dated 14 September 2022, the Tribunal has allowed the OA, reasoning
as under:

“5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also

3
Non-Creamy Layer-OBC
4
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 2 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

perused the pleadings on record. It is not in dispute that the
Applicant was successful in the selection process for the post of
Operation Theatre Assistant. Further it is also not in dispute that
the Applicant belongs to the OBC category and thus is eligible to
hold a post reserved for such category . It is also not in dispute that
the Applicant processes and has submitted an OBC certificate
which for all intents and purposes is a valid OBC certificate . The
limited issue is whether the Respondents were obliged to accept
the said certificate since the advertisement notice required the
certificate to be issued during the period of 01004.2019 to
31.03.2020 and admittedly the Applicants certificates, the 2 of
them did not belong to this period.

6. In our considered view, denying an offer of appointment on
this limited ground may be adhering to the word of law but is
definitely against the spirit of justice . It is a hyper technical ground
to deny appointment to a candidate who has been successful in the
competitive examination on his own merit. The only ground on
which the Applicant can be denied the offer of appointment is if he
belongs to the creamy layer . Nothing prevents the Respondents
from holding such an enquiry, if required.…”
(Emphasis supplied)


4. Following these observations, the Tribunal has disposed of the
OA with a direction to the AIIMS to accept the OBC certificate
submitted by the respondent as a valid certificate for the purpose of
appointment, subject to verification as to whether he belongs to the
creamy layer. In the event that he did not, the Tribunal has directed
that an offer of appointment be issued to the respondent.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the AIIMS has preferred the present writ
petition.


6. We have heard Mr. Atul Kumar for the AIIMS and Mr. A.K.
Trivedi for the respondent.

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 3 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

7. While Mr. Trivedi submits that the reasoning of the Tribunal is
unexceptionable, Mr. Atul Kumar would contend, per contra , that the
Tribunal could not have passed an order contrary to the Advertisement
whereagainst the respondent had applied.

8. It is obvious, to us, that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal
cannot sustain. Indeed, if the view adopted by the Tribunal were to be
accepted, it would render, completely redundant, the stipulation in
para 9 of the Advertisement, italicised in the extract in para 1 supra
which we, for the sake of clarity, deem it appropriate to reproduce:

“The vacancies are being advertised in financial year 2019-2020,
5
therefore, valid NCL-OBC certificate issued during the period
from 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2020 will be considered valid. Candidature
who have NCL-OBC certificate issued before or after this period
(i.e 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2020), will not be considered valid for this
advertisement.”


9. The Tribunal could, clearly, not have rendered a judgment
which would entirely wipe out the above stipulation in the
Advertisement. No court can rewrite the terms of the advertisement,
whereunder the candidate applies.

10. The error committed by the Tribunal is essentially more of
perception than of law. This is clear from the opening sentence in para
6 of the impugned judgment, in which the Tribunal has observed that
denying an offer of appointment to the respondent on the ground that
the OBC-NCL certificate produced by the respondent had not been

5
Non-Creamy Layer-OBC
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 4 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

issued within the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020 stipulated in
the advertisement “may be adhering to the word of law but it is
definitely against the spirit of justice”. With respect, this observation
is jurisprudentially flawed. It is true that it is justice which is our
preambular goal, and it is also true that law, which does not aspire to
justice, is meaningless. At the same time, administration of justice
cannot be innocent of the law. Nor can any court administer justice
contrary to the law. The court cannot administer justice by steering
clear of the law. The Supreme Court has, very recently in
6
Commissioner, Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar , tellingly observed
thus:

“The boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out
beyond which the adjudicatory fora ought not to trench. Grace,
charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of
public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured .”
(Emphasis supplied)


11. While observing that it would be “against the spirit of justice”
to deny appointment to the respondent, it appears that the Tribunal has
failed to notice that the guarantee of justice does not apply only to the
respondent, but to every candidate who was aspiring for appointment.
Selectively allowing the respondent to be appointed despite his not
having been in possession of a valid OBC-NCL certificate would be
doing injustice to a host of other candidates who may not have had
such a certificate and, therefore, may not have applied. Equally, if all
such candidates were to be permitted to apply, it would do injustice to
persons who had valid OBC-NCL certificates and would be forced to

6
2026 SCC OnLine SC 523
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 5 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

compete with other candidates who did not possess such valid
certificates. While examining whether justice was being done,
therefore, the Tribunal ought to have approached the matter
holistically, rather than viewing it merely from the perspective of the
respondent.

12. There are other observations, in the above extracted paras 5 and
6 of the impugned judgement with which, too, we have difficulty in
agreeing.

13. The Tribunal has held that, as the respondent belonged to the
OBC category, it was not in dispute that he was “eligible to hold the
post reserved for such category”. Holding of a post is a second step,
after a person is selected and appointed to the post. For this, the
person has to be eligible and entitled to compete for the post. A person
who does not possess a valid OBC-NCL certificate and who is not,
therefore, eligible even to compete for the post cannot be said to be
“eligible to hold the post”.

14. The Tribunal has further observed that the OBC certificates
held by the respondent were “for all intents and purpose valid OBC
certificates”. This, again, is a legally untenable observation. Quite
clearly, the OBC certificate held by the respondent, not having been
issued during the period stipulated in the advertisement, could not be
treated as a “valid OBC certificate for all intents and purposes”. It may
have been a valid OBC certificate for any other intent or purpose; it
was certainly not a valid OBC certificate for the purposes of the
Advertisement against which the respondent had applied.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 6 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

15. Resultantly, we are also unable to subscribe to the observation
of the Tribunal that “the only ground on which the respondent can be
denied the offer of appointment is if he belongs to the creamy layer”.
The OBC certificates held by the respondent being invalid as per the
terms of the Advertisement, was the primary ground on which the
candidature of the respondent could not be accepted. The Tribunal
cannot, therefore, be said to be correct in its observation that the only
ground on which the respondent could be denied appointment was if
he did not belong to the creamy layer.


16. Additionally, we may also observe that, having participated in
the selection in full knowledge of the requirement in the
Advertisement regarding the OBC certificate which he had to produce,
the respondent could not, having failed to produce an OBC certificate
fulfilling the requirement, raise a grievance after the selection process
was complete.

17. Peripherally, we may also note that there was no challenge, by
the respondent, to the requirement, in the Advertisement, of the OBC
certificate having to be issued between 1 April 2019 and 31 March
2020.

18. In view of the fact that admittedly the certificate produced by
the respondent OBC-NCL certificate does not conform to the
requirement contained in Clause 9 of the advertisement, we cannot
sustain the order of the Tribunal granting appointment to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 7 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58

respondent.

19. Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
OA filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, accordingly, stands
dismissed.

20. The writ petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.



C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 10, 2026/pa
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2314/2023 Page 8 of 8

Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:20.04.2026
13:10:58