LPA/722/2018 of SUMANT Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+LPA 722/2018

SUMANT

..... Appellant

Through:Mr. O. P. Gehlaut, Advocate.

versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKThrough:

..... Respondent

Mr. Jagat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar andMr. Murad Khan, Advocates.

CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R19.12.2018

CM APPL. 53603/2018 (delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal iscondoned and the application is disposed of.

LPA 722/2018 & CM APPL. 53602/2018

2. This is an appeal against the order dated 14[th]August 2018 passed by thelearned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7586/2016.

3. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the Appellant beingaggrieved by his non-selection in the recruitment conducted by theRespondent for the post of Peon. Among the conditionalities attached to theappointment was the production of Caste Certificate as prescribed by theMinistry of Welfare, Government of India. certificate had to further be

submitted to the effect that the OBC candidate does not belong to the‘creamy layer’.

4. The Appellant’s case before the learned Single Judge was that he hadsubmitted an OBC certificate which showed him as belonging to the Jatcaste which was recognized as OBC by the Government of NCT of Delhi.Although the Appellant was issued an appointment letter on 9[th]April 2015,his candidature was subsequently cancelled by the Respondent on theground that the caste certificate produced by the Appellant was not on thebasis of any notification of the Central Government.

5. Before the learned Single Judge, it was sought to be contended by theAppellant that there was in fact notification dated 4[th]March 2014 issuedby the Central Government notifying by the Jat community as backwardclass for, inter alia, the NCT of Delhi as well. As noted by the learnedSingle Judge, the said notification of the Central Government was struckdown by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC697. subsequent application filed before the Supreme Court seekingclarification that the decision would be prospective was also dismissed on21[st]July 2015. Consequently, the Appellant’s candidature on the basis of theOBC certificate issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi could not beacted upon by the Respondent Bank.

6. Before the learned Single Judge, an alternative plea was raised by theAppellant on the basis of an averment in para 13 of the writ petition that theAppellant had obtained “rank higher than some of the General Categorycandidates” and was, therefore, eligible to be appointed as General

Category (‘GC’) candidate.

7. The learned Single Judge has negated this plea on the basis that it was abald averment which did not provide any particulars and did not identify anycandidate who may have scored lower rank in marks in the GC categoryand was yet appointed.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellant before us at the outset stated that thathe did not wish to pursue line of argument that on the basis of the OBCcertificate issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Appellant wasentitled to be appointed in that category. He confined his plea to theAppellant being entitled to be appointed as GC candidate.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Bank was refusing todisclose information about the rank of the last GC candidate and withoutsuch information, it would not be possible for the Appellant to demonstratethat the list of successful GC category candidates published by the Bank was‘manipulated’ or ‘discriminatory’ qua the Appellant.

10. It is seen from the prayers made in the writ petition that there was nospecific prayer that the Appellant should be considered in the quota of GCcandidates and should be appointed as GC candidate. As rightly pointed outby the learned Single Judge, it is only in para 13 that bald averment wasmade that the Appellant had obtained “a rank higher than some of the GCcandidates”.

11. When this Court inquired as to the basis of such averment, learned

counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant had somehow learnt thathe had rank higher than the selected GC candidates. This is obviouslybased on hearsay and not based on any fact or record. This Court is notinclined to now enter into an inquiry as to the marks obtained by the lastappointed GC candidate. Some factual foundation had to be laid by theAppellant to enable the learned Single Judge to further examine the matter.At the very least, the Appellant should have made prayer in that regard.

12. To this Court, it appears that the Appellant’s entire case was based onhis OBC certificate and therefore he never really pursued the line that heshould be considered for being appointed as GC candidate. Consequently,no factual basis was laid and therefore no prayer also made for that relief.

13. The Court is therefore not prepared at this stage to inquire into whetherthe last appointed GC candidate secured marks lower than the Appellant.The Court is unable to find any error committed by the learned Single Judgein dismissing the writ petition.

14. The appeal and the pending application are dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

DECEMBER 19, 2018nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J.