Delhi HC Upholds Rejection of OBC Candidate Whose Certificate Traced to Bihar, Flags GNCTD's Chaotic Reservation Circulars
A Division Bench found the petitioner's OBC certificate defective under Advertisement Clause 5(iv) because it was issued on the basis of his father's Bihar Bhawan certificate, not a Delhi Government certificate.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition filed by Shashi, a candidate who applied for the post of Special Educator under an advertisement issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board had rejected his candidature, after document verification, on the ground that his Other Backward Classes certificate was issued by the Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi on the basis of an earlier certificate obtained from the Bihar Bhawan in favour of his father, a resident of Buxar, Bihar. The Division Bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, upheld that rejection. In doing so, the bench used the occasion to criticise the GNCTD's practice of issuing successive, ambiguously worded circulars on OBC reservation, calling the resulting state of affairs “utter chaos.”
The Candidate's Path and the Rejection Notice
Shashi applied under the Other Backward Classes category pursuant to Advertisement 04/20 issued by the Directorate of Education. He cleared the selection process through to the document verification stage. The DSSSB then issued Rejection Notice No. 881 dated 30 June 2022, recording that his OBC certificate dated 18 June 2016 had been issued on the basis of his father's residence in Buxar, Bihar, making him an “OBC (Outsider).” The notice further noted that he had not secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the Unreserved category.
The OBC certificate itself, issued by the Office of the District Magistrate, Dwarka, South West District, confirmed that Shashi belongs to the Yadav community of Bihar State. Crucially, the certificate stated that it was issued on the basis of an OBC certificate issued to his father, Shiv Narayan Singh, by the Bihar Bhawan vide Certificate No. 040778301111503408 dated 6 November 2015. Shashi and his family resided at Pochanpur Extension, Delhi.
Shashi challenged the rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 2257/2022. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 24 August 2022, holding that the applicable circulars required the Delhi-issued OBC certificate to trace back to a family member who had resided in Delhi before 8 September 1993, and that Shashi had produced no such certificate. He then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
What the Advertisement Said — and Why It Created Confusion
The Advertisement set out reservation conditions in Clause 5. Clause 5(i) stated that reservation benefits would be available in accordance with instructions, orders, and circulars issued from time to time by the Government of Delhi, without referencing any specific circular number. Clause 5(iii) restricted OBC reservation to candidates notified by GNCTD vide letters dated 27 July 2007 and 28 July 2016. Clause 5(iv) specified that only two types of OBC certificates would be accepted.
Sub-clause (iv)(a) required that, where the certificate was issued by the Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi, it must have been issued on the basis of an old certificate issued to any member of the individual's family from GNCT of Delhi. Sub-clause (iv)(b) applied to certificates issued by a competent authority outside Delhi, mandating that such a certificate must trace back to an OBC certificate issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi to a family member who had been residing in Delhi before 8 September 1993.
The DOPT Office Memorandum dated 27 July 2007 had extended the benefit of OBC reservation in civil posts under GNCTD to all castes in the Central list of OBCs for Delhi. A subsequent DOPT Office Memorandum dated 28 July 2016 formalised the two categories of acceptable certificates. A further clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 31 May 2021 stated that a Delhi-issued OBC certificate would be valid irrespective of whether it mentioned an old certificate issued to the holder's father, siblings, or real uncles on the paternal side. A communication dated 8 November 2021 from the Department for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC/Minorities reaffirmed that the Central list castes for Delhi were eligible for reservation benefits.
The bench observed that Clause 5(i), by referring generically to all circulars and orders issued from time to time without identifying them, placed candidates in a state of “utter uncertainty” as to their eligibility. The bench described such a clause as unfair and potentially unsustainable in law. It noted that candidates cannot be expected to scour the internet to locate every GNCTD circular, and that even if they found one, they could never be certain a subsequent circular had not modified it.
The Legal Tension: Caste-Specific Letters Against a Certificate-Specific Clause
Counsel for Shashi, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, argued that his client belonged to the Yadav caste, which is included in the Central List of OBCs for the GNCTD under a Resolution dated 24 May 1995. He relied on the GNCTD letter dated 27 July 2007 and Clause 5(iii) of the Advertisement, submitting that his client was an OBC candidate notified by that letter and therefore entitled to reservation benefits. Standing Counsel for the DSSSB, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, countered that Clause 5(iv) was clear: a Delhi-issued OBC certificate must trace back to an old certificate issued to a family member by the GNCTD itself. Since Shashi's certificate traced to his father's Bihar Bhawan certificate, it did not satisfy that requirement.
The Tribunal had accepted the DSSSB's position, reading the 31 May 2021 Office Memorandum as merely clarificatory and not as altering the basic requirement that the certificate must be anchored in Delhi residency before 8 September 1993. The High Court, too, found the answer lay in a harmonious reading of Clause 5(iii) and Clause 5(iv).
How the Division Bench Resolved the Conflict
Justice C. Hari Shankar, writing for the bench, held that Clause 5(iii) and Clause 5(iv) operate at different levels and do not contradict each other. Clause 5(iii) is caste-specific: it sets a threshold condition that only candidates whose caste is covered by the 27 July 2007 and 28 July 2016 letters are eligible for OBC reservation at all. It does not, by itself, render every such candidate eligible without more. Clause 5(iv) is certificate-specific: it governs the form and basis of the certificate that must be produced. Satisfying Clause 5(iii) is necessary, but not sufficient; the certificate must also satisfy Clause 5(iv).
The bench held that this reading was the only harmonious interpretation that gave effect to all clauses of the Advertisement. Accepting the petitioner's argument would require completely ignoring Clause 5(iv)(a), which the bench declined to do.
Applying this framework, the bench agreed that the Yadav caste satisfies Clause 5(iii), since it appears in the Central List of OBCs for civil posts under the GNCTD. The certificate, however, fails Clause 5(iv)(a). Because the certificate was issued by the Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi, sub-clause (a) applied. That sub-clause required the certificate to have been issued on the basis of an earlier certificate issued to a family member by the Delhi Government. Shashi's certificate was instead issued on the basis of his father's Bihar Bhawan certificate. That condition was therefore not met.
The bench also rejected any argument that the petitioner could escape the advertisement's terms by not having challenged them at the outset: having applied pursuant to the Advertisement without challenging it, the petitioner could not ignore its covenants at the stage of seeking relief.
The Bench's Criticism of GNCTD's Circular-Drafting
Although the petition was dismissed, the bench did not leave the matter without comment on the broader regulatory picture. It observed that the GNCTD had, in the area of OBC reservations, created “utter chaos” by issuing successive notifications, circulars, and letters, often worded ambiguously, with each advertisement adding further layers of confusion. The bench noted that several such matters had come before it within the preceding year alone, with different instructions being relied upon in different cases. It described the resulting legal situation as being in a state of flux, which the bench said was undesirable, particularly in the context of reservation for OBCs.
The bench specifically called out Clause 5(i) of the Advertisement as a provision that places candidates in uncertainty by incorporating by reference an open-ended body of government circulars and orders. The bench said such a drafting approach was both unfair to candidates and potentially unsustainable in law, without going further to strike it down in this proceeding.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed W.P.(C) 15195/2022 with no order as to costs. The impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24 August 2022, dismissing OA 2257/2022, was upheld. The rejection of Shashi's candidature for the post of Special Educator by the DSSSB vide Rejection Notice No. 881 dated 30 June 2022 was confirmed. Since Shashi did not secure the minimum qualifying marks for the Unreserved category either, no relief was available to him on that footing.