Hariom Chauhan v. UOI and Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J. APRIL 25, 2011 pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No. 1028/2011 Judgment reserved on: 18th April, 2011 % Judgment pronounced on: 25th April, 2011 HARIOM CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Adv. versus UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms.Megha Brara, Advs. for R-1 to 3 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The petitioner applied for the post of TGT (Hindi) under the Directorate of Education in response to the advertisement No. 06/2006 by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for brevity "the DSSSB"). In the application for the said post, he claimed to be of reserved category being a Scheduled Caste candidate. The examination was held in the year 2007 but his name did not find place in the selection list that was published on 30.03.2008. 2. The petitioner challenged his non-selection in two Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the tribunal") being OA No. 2036/2009 and 2488/2009. The tribunal, considering its earlier decision in Anil Dahiya v. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 1054/2008) decided on 15.9.2008, vide its orders dated 10.9.2009 and 24.9.2009 directed the respondents to offer the post to the petitioner on deemed eligibility to the post of TGT (Hindi). The tribunal had further directed that the other eligibility criteria were also to be considered. Be it noted, the case of the petitioner, as pleaded, was that he was not considered on the ground that he had not studied Hindi at an elective level in the graduation. 3. After the tribunal disposed of the applications, the DSSSB found that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Subhash Chandra & Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2009) 15 SCC 458, the petitioner was not found eligible for the benefit of reservation in Scheduled Caste category being a Scheduled Caste of the State of Haryana. It was also noticed that in view of the unreserved category, the marks obtained by him were much below the marks of the last selected candidate and, therefore, the case for selection was not feasible. Being grieved by the non-selection on the said score, the petitioner approached the tribunal in Original Application No.677/2010. The singular question that arose before the tribunal pertained to the applicability of the decision in Subhash Chandra & Anr. (supra). It was contended before the tribunal that the decision in Subhash Chandra & Anr. (supra) had prospective applicability and further as the community of Chamar of the State of Haryana is included in the list, he was entitled to get a similar benefit in the State of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The said stand and stance of the petitioner was combated by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the decision in Subhash Chandra & Anr. (supra) only reiterate the principle laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 130. It was also put forth that the controversy was covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Naraish Kumar & Ors. v. GNCTD & Anr., decided on 11.12.2009. The tribunal referred to the decision in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) wherein it had been held that a Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe in his original State would be entitled to all the benefits under the Constitution in that State alone and not in all parts of the country wherever he migrates. The tribunal placed reliance on the case of Subhash Chandra & Anr. (supra) wherein the said principle was reiterated. The tribunal also referred to the order dated 13.11.2009 of the Apex Court whereby the decision in Subhash Chandra & Anr. (supra) was clarified. The tribunal, relying on the said decision, came to hold that