1

                                                                         NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3409 OF 2009      (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19321 of 2005)

Union of India & Ors.                                                        ……….Appellants

Versus

Dalbir Singh & Anr.                                                         ……..Respondents  

JUDGMENT  

H.L. Dattu,J.  

              Leave granted.

1) This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed  

against  a  judgment  and  order  of  a  Division  Bench  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana High Court, in Civil Writ Petition No. 6481 – CAT of 2005  

dated  April  28,  2005,  affirming  the  order  passed  by  the  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh  Bench in  O.A.  No.  86-HR of  

2003 dated May 22, 2004.

2

2) The  short  question  is,  whether  the  Administrative  Tribunal  is  

justified in directing the appellants to appoint Respondent No. 1 as  

a selected candidate in the general category even though he had not  

applied under that category.  

3) The appellants  advertised in the News Paper for selection to 20  

vacant posts of Mazdoor  both in general and reserved category.  

Respondent  No.  1  applied  for  selection  in  the  reserved  (OBC)  

category and had annexed his OBC certificate dated 4.5.1997. A  

separate Board Proceedings was prepared for the candidates who  

had claimed concession on the basis of OBC certificate and name  

of the respondent No. 1 was also in the said proceedings.  Since the  

permanent address furnished in the application was different and  

the  OBC certificate  furnished  was  from the  different  State;  the  

authenticity  of  the  said  document  was  sought  from the  issuing  

authority.  It was intimated by SDO(C), Ambala, vide their letter  

dated 11.7.2000 that  the said certificate  was not  issued by their  

office. The same was informed to respondent No.1, and thereafter,  

he produced another certificate dated 14.8.2000 issued by SDO(C),  

Ambala  in  which  a  new address  was  given  and the  respondent  

No.1 was shown to be in OBC category on account of his being of  

the `Saini’ caste and later on it was found that `Saini’ caste was not

3

in the OBC category in Punjab State.  In view of this discrepancy  

in  the  caste  certificate  produced,  the  candidature  of  respondent  

No.1  came to be rejected by the appellants and, accordingly, no  

letter of appointment was issued to respondent No. 1.

4) Aggrieved by the action of the appellants,  contesting respondent  

filed  O.A.  No.  86  of  2003  before  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal,  Chandigarh  Bench,  seeking  a  direction  that  he  be  

provided  employment  for  the  post  of  Mazdoor  with  all  

consequential benefits either by including his name in the list of  

candidates prepared for general category and, in the alternative, to  

direct the respondents therein to accept the OBC certificate issued  

by SDO(C), Ambala dated 14.8.2000.

5) The appellants in their written objections while traversing  all the  

assertions and allegations made by the applicant, had stated that  

separate Board Proceedings had been prepared for candidates who  

had claimed concessions on the basis  of OBC category and the  

applicant having opted to be considered under the OBC category,  

he was expected to produce the genuine certificate issued by the  

competent  authority.  They  had  also  stated  that,  to  fill  up  the  

vacancies  of  Mazdoors,  an  advertisement  had  been  issued  

separately for general and OBC categories and pursuant to such

4

advertisement, the applicant had applied against OBC category and  

not  under  general  category  and,  therefore,  his  name  was  not  

considered under general category.

6) The Administrative Tribunal while accepting the assertion made by  

the  appellants  regarding  the  non-suitability  of  the  certificates  

furnished by the respondent herein, still directed  the appellants to  

issue letter  of appointment to the respondent by considering his  

candidature in the general category as he had scored more marks  

then one of the candidate in the general category.

7) Against this decision, the appellants had carried the matter by way  

of writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The  

High Court vide its order dated 28.4.2005 had dismissed the writ  

petition.   

8) The substantial point that requires consideration in the appeal is,  

whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to give  

appointment  to  respondent  No.1  under  general  category  on  the  

basis of marks obtained by him, even if it requires replacing of a  

last candidate in the selected general category.  

9) For proper determination of the question, it would be convenient,  

first of all to refer to the advertisement/Employment Notice issued  

by the appellants  inviting applications to fill  up vacant  posts of

5

Mazdoors in Suranasi, Jalandhar. In the employment notice there is  

a mention of number of posts  available in general  category and  

other backward classes (OBC category).

10) Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  employment  notice,  respondent  No.1,  

filed his application to consider his case under OBC category. In  

support  of  his  claim,  he  had  produced  caste  certificate.  It  so  

happens that the certificate produced was found to be defective.  

This  has  resulted  in  not  enlisting  his  name  in  the  select  list.  

Respondent at no point of time had claimed before the authorities  

that if for any reason, his case cannot be considered under OBC  

category, at least the appellants should consider his case under the  

general merit  list.  From the pleadings, it appears to us, that the  

appellants had prepared two sets of lists.  The first one being the  

list of those candidates who had staked their claim in the general  

merit and the second list contains those candidates who had opted  

for  consideration  of  their  case  under  OBC  category.   The  

respondent  at  no  point  of  time  had  taken  exception  to  the  

procedure adopted by the appellants in preparing the select list. In  

our opinion, having opted to consider his case only under OBC  

category,  he cannot thereafter  claim that  his case requires to be  

considered in the general merit, only because, he has scored better

6

percentage of marks than the last selected candidate in the general  

merit. In our considered view, the Administrative Tribunal having  

found  that  the  appellants  were  justified  in  not  considering  the  

respondent’s case for appointment under OBC category, ought not  

to have directed the appellants to consider his claim under general  

category.  

11) For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the  

impugned orders.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we  

direct the parties to bear their own costs.  

 …………………………………J.

                                                                                      [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ H.L. DATTU ]

New Delhi, May 08, 2009.