Service Law:
Recruitment – Of Special Education Teachers – In the NCT of Delhi – Essential qualification wherefor inter-alia was Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) – For reservation in OBC Category, the recruitment advertisement required such candidates to possess caste certificate issued by Govt. of Delhi – Respondents/candidates, who had CTET qualification by availing 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in the CTET from their respective States (not Delhi) applied under reserved category of OBC and appeared in written test – They were denied candidature as not eligible because they were CTET qualified as OBC outsider, and not from Delhi – Original Application against the order rejecting their candidature was allowed by Central Administrative Tribunal directing the authorities to appoint the candidates by considering their merit position in the unreserved category – Tribunal’s order was upheld by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Since the candidates are not certified as OBC by Govt. of NCT of Delhi they cannot be considered eligible in the OBC category – They also cannot be considered against unreserved category because there is an express bar under Office Memoranda on migration to unreserved category of those reserved category candidates, who had availed of relaxation in the qualification.
Reservation – Principles of reservation under the Constitution are intended to be confined to a specifically earmarked category and the unreserved category must be protected to avoid dilution of competence and merit.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. For reservation in the OBC category under Clause 6 (iii) of Advertisement No.1/13, the OBC candidates were required to be in possession of caste certificate issued by the Govt. of Delhi only. Therefore, in the Delhi recruitment process, the respondents did not possess OBC (Delhi) certificate and thus they could not be considered for the OBC category vacancies. Further, as per the CTET guidelines, unreserved candidates are required to obtain 60% marks to qualify in the CTET. Since the Respondents obtained less than 60% in CTET, their candidature could be valid only under the OBC category. However due to absence of certificate of OBC status by Government of NCT, Delhi and by virtue of clause 6(iii) of the recruitment advertisement which bars reservations to outsider OBC, the Respondents are ineligible for the applied post. They may however compete against the unreserved vacancies, if they pass CTET with minimum 60% marks. Admittedly, none of the Respondents are certified by the GNCT of Delhi as OBC and neither do they possess the requisite 60% marks in CTET for qualification for the one-tier exam, as per the Advertisement. An OBC candidate not certified in the State/Territory outside of Delhi cannot be eligible to avail of employment in reserved category posts earmarked for OBCs who are certified by the Delhi Government. [Paras 14, 15, and 23][1064-B-F; 1067-F]
2. The OMs dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training issued specific instructions to the effect that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a reserved category candidate, in age limit, experience, qualification, additional chances in written examination etc., such candidates will be counted against reserved vacancies. There is an express bar on migration to the unreserved category of those reserved category candidates who had availed of relaxation including those for qualification. The prescription of the eligibility qua CTET, in the advertisement, will therefore have to be understood bearing in mind, the contents of the OM dated 01.07.1998. To apply the advertisement in the present facts will not be correct. The same OM dated 01.07.1998. There is an express bar on migration to the unreserved category of those reserved category candidates who had availed of relaxation including those for qualification. The prescription of the eligibility qua CTET, in the advertisement, will therefore have to be understood bearing in mind, the contents of the OM dated 01.07.1998. [Paras 21.1 and 22][1066-B-C; 1067-C-D] Deepa EV v Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680 – relied on.
3. In the present case, the candidates (i.e. the respondents) belong to States other than Delhi. Being OBC (outsiders), they could have been considered only under the unreserved category if they secure at least 60% marks in the CTET. The respondents admittedly did not secure 60% and thus were ineligible. [Para 23][1067-E]
4. The respondents are competing for general category vacancies. All others in this group have obtained their CTET eligibility qualification, securing the normal pass marks without availing any relaxation of pass norms. On the other hand, the respondents despite their lesser marks in the CTET examination, could qualify only because they availed the relaxation benefits as OBC category examinees. Their eligibility qualification is secured under relaxed norms meant for OBC category and therefore it is not proper to consider them to be eligible for the general category vacancies. [Para 24][1067-G-H; 1068-A]
5. The respondents with their CTET qualification under relaxed norms would be eligible for OBC category posts provided their OBC status is certified and recognized by the Delhi Government. But such not being the case, they are ineligible for the reserved category vacancies. To allow them to migrate and compete for the open category vacancies would not be permissible simply because, they have secured the CTET qualification with relaxation of pass marks meant for those belonging to the OBC category. As the respondents have not secured the normal pass marks for general category, their eligibility for the general category vacancies is not secured. Therefore, their performance in the selection examination would be of no relevance, in the present process. [Para 25][1068-D-E]
6. The present case concerns qualifications obtained with concession in pass marks. Such concession would have a direct impact on standards of competence and merit in the recruitment of Special Education Teachers. The principles of reservation under the Constitution of India are intended to be confined to a specifically earmarked category and the unreserved category must be protected, to avoid dilution of competence and merit. [Para 26] [1068-D-E]
Vikas Sankhla & Ors. V. Vikas Agarwal & Ors. (2017)
1 SCC 350 : [2016] 7 SCR 639 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.