Administrative uncertainty cannot defeat reserved-category candidature where delayed certificate submission was not attributable to the applicant.

The respondents invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in the Haryana Postal Circle, with 27.03.2014 as the last date for submission of applications.

The applicant, belonging to the Jat community, applied for an OBC certificate on 22/23.03.2014 after the community had been included in the Central OBC list by Government notification dated 04.03.2014 and circulated in Haryana on 21.03.2014.

The certificate was issued on 28.04.2014 and produced by the applicant during document verification on 29.10.2014.

The applicant qualified in the recruitment examination and was selected provisionally under the OBC category.

The respondents subsequently issued a show-cause notice alleging that he had falsely declared possession of an OBC certificate as on the last date of application, and cancelled his candidature by order dated 28.01.2015.

The respondents contended that the certificate was issued after the closing date, that the Central notification recognising Jats as OBCs had later been quashed by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh v. Union of India, and that the applicant could not thereafter claim appointment as an unreserved candidate or through the waiting list.

The applicant relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in Dharambir v. Union of India and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, arguing that delayed submission of a caste certificate could not by itself defeat a reserved-category candidate’s candidature.

He also claimed that vacancies had remained unfilled and that candidates in the waiting list ought to have been considered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 788 days in filing the application and proceeded to decide the matter on merits.

1. Whether the applicant’s candidature could lawfully be cancelled merely because his OBC certificate was issued and submitted after the prescribed date, despite his having applied for the certificate before the closing date and the Jat community having then been recognised as OBC?

2. Whether the applicant could be considered for appointment against the OBC vacancies of the 2013–2014 recruitment notwithstanding the subsequent withdrawal/quashing of the notification recognising Jats as OBCs?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment against unfilled vacancies or through the waiting list?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, holding that an applicant should not be deprived of a lawful opportunity because of an administrative or transitional delay in issuance of a caste certificate.

The Tribunal relied on Dharambir v. Union of India, where delayed submission of an OBC certificate was held insufficient, by itself, to invalidate candidature, and on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 2016 (4) SCC 734, which recognised that candidature of a reserved-category candidate could not be rejected solely for late submission of the caste certificate.

The relevant Government notifications recognising Jat as an OBC community, and the subsequent withdrawal/quashing of that recognition, were considered in determining the applicant’s status at the relevant time.

The Tribunal also considered the administrative instructions concerning operation of waiting lists, but ultimately granted relief on the basis of the applicant’s entitlement to consideration against the OBC vacancies of the original recruitment.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had taken steps to obtain the OBC certificate before the last date of application and that the Jat community had been recognised as OBC by the relevant Government notifications at the material time.

Consequently, the delay in issuance and production of the certificate could not be attributed solely to the applicant.

Applying Dharambir and Ram Kumar Gijroya, the Tribunal found that rejection of the candidature solely on the ground of delayed submission of the certificate was disproportionate and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal further observed that the subsequent withdrawal of OBC recognition created a transitional conflict between the applicant’s status at the time of recruitment and the later legal position.

It held that this clash of dates and governmental actions could not operate to deprive the applicant of an opportunity to which he was entitled during the 2013–2014 recruitment.

Although the respondents argued that the applicant could not be treated as an unreserved candidate because of a tie in marks, and that the waiting list had expired and vacancies had subsequently been filled, the Tribunal considered that the appropriate relief was consideration against the OBC vacancies of the original recruitment rather than appointment in the general category or merely through the waiting list.

It condoned the delay in submission of the OBC certificate and directed the respondents to consider the applicant against the OBC vacancies of the 2013–2014 recruitment and issue him an appointment letter for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.

The directions were to be completed within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.