Statutory 27% OBC reservation mandate prevails over post-based rosters to ensure full quota compliance.

The applicant, an OBC candidate, challenged Recruitment Advertisement No. 02/21 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for Post Code 36/21 (TGT Natural Science - Female)

The applicant contended that out of 824 total advertised vacancies, only 96 were reserved for the OBC category, whereas a 27% reservation policy should have resulted in approximately 222 vacancies

The respondents defended the allocation, stating that posts were filled based on a "post-based roster" in accordance with applicable policy

The applicant sought a direction for the respondents to implement the full 27% quota and consider her candidature against the revised vacancy count

1. Whether the respondents violated the mandated 27% OBC reservation policy by earmarking only 96 vacancies out of 824 for Post Code 36/21

2. Whether the application of a post-based roster can supersede the constitutional and statutory mandate of percentage-based reservation in a recruitment advertisement

The Tribunal relied on the constitutional mandate governing reservations and the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 19.01.2007, which prescribes that reservation percentages (15% SC, 7.5% ST, and 27% OBC) must be applied to the sanctioned strength and vacancy quotas

It further followed the judicial precedents set in Prateek Singhal Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Ors. (O.A. No. 741/2023), which addressed similar discrepancies in reservation counts

Gaurav Sharma, which applied similar principles to the EWS category

The Tribunal observed that the issues in the present case were "strikingly similar" to those in Prateek Singhal

It rejected the respondents' argument that the post-based roster alone governs reservation, noting that such an interpretation in isolation would defeat the object and purpose of the reservation policy

The Tribunal emphasized that the roster must be implemented based on the actual vacancy position to remain in consonance with constitutional mandates

By referencing the 2007 OM, the Tribunal illustrated that reservation must be calculated as a specific percentage of the recruitment quota (e.g., 27% of direct recruitment posts)

Following the logic in Prateek Singhal, the Tribunal reasoned that any shortfall in the reserved category must be rectified to satisfy the legal requirement

It held that the reservation policy must be fully implemented.

Following the cited precedent, the Tribunal suggested that if additional posts are required to meet the 27% OBC quota, they should be offered by creating supernumerary posts to ensure that the rights of currently selected candidates or those on the waiting list are not adversely affected

No costs were awarded