Full Text
LPA 312/2017
DR SUCHETA Appellant
Through: Ms.BhaktiPasrija Sethi,Adv.
Through: Nemo.
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
28.04.2017 CM No.15935/2017 Exemption is allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
CM No.15937/2017 By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of one day's delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application,delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No.15936/2017 By way of this application, the applicant seeks permission to annex the experience certificates regarding her pastemployment which she had left for the purpose ofjoining the respondentNo.2.
Given the issues which arise for consideration in the writ petition and which are pressed here,these experience certificates are irrelevant.
This application stands dismissed.
LPA 312of2017 Page1 of6 2017:DHC:8883-DB
ORDER
1. The appellant assails the order dated 15.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.2347/2017 by the learned Single Judge.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are within a narrow compass which,the extentrelevant,are set out hereunder.
3. It appears that the Central Government by a Notification dated 04.03.2014 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, included the 'Jat' community - non-creamy layer, in the Central List of Other Backward Classes (OBC). The appellant belongs to the Jat community.
4. The respondent No.2 herein had initiated the selection process for the post ofSenior Scientific Officer and Scientific Assistant by issuing Circular No.2/14 inviting the applications forthe eligible candidates to fill up the said posts. In view ofthe Notification dated 04.03.2014,the candidature ofthe appellant in the reserved OBC category was accepted by the respondent No.2,and by a letter dated 30.06.2016,appointment was offered to her as a Senior Scientific Officer.
5. It appears that this reservation was overruled the judicial pronouncement dated 17.03.2015 ofthe Supreme Court in Ram Singh and Others vs. Union ofIndia(2015)4SCC697 whereby the Notification dated 04.03.2014 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which included the Jat community-non-creamy layer in the Central List of Other Backward Classes(OBC),was set aside. A review petition filed there against has also been dismissed by order dated 21.07.2015.
6. It is trite that in view ofthe law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh (supra), no appointment could be effected in any organization LPA 312of2017 Page2of[6] of a candidate claiming reservation on account of his/her belonging to the Jat caste under OBC category in the Central List.
7. It appears that after the above pronouncement ofthe Supreme Court, yet another application was moved for clarification in Ram Singh(supra)as to what would be the fate ofthe appointment under the reserved category,of a person who belonged to the Jat caste, which stood effected prior to the passing of the said judgment by the Supreme Court on 17.03.2015. The clarificatory order by the Supreme Court came to be passed on 12.04.2016, which has been extracted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. I The relevant extract ofthe order dated 12.04.2016 reads as follows: "1. Application(s)for impleadment are allowed.
2. The interlocutory applications before us can be conveniently divided into three categories. The first is where the applicants have been appointed as Probationary Officers before the date of the judgment i.e. 17.03.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2014,titled as Ram Singh& Ors vs. Union ofIndia.
3. The second category of applicants are those who had commenced the diploma/training course in Banking prior to the date ofjudgment i.e. 17.03.2015. The advertisement issued and the offer to undergo the diploma/training course, which followed a due selection, clearly stipulated that on successful completion of the diploma/training course the concerned persons would be eligible to be appointed as Probationary Officers. Following the judgment of this Court in Ram Singh (supra)the course has been terminated mid way.
4. The third categorv of applicants had commenced the similar training/diploma course after the date of the judgment i.e. 17.03.2015 and the same has been discontinued pursuant thereto.
5. While undoubtedly the decision laid down in Ram Singh (supra) has not been made prospective, yet, in exercise ofthe power under Article 142 ofthe Constitution it will be open for this Courtto protectthe vested rights that might have accrued in LPA 212of2017 Page3of[6] an appropriate case.
6. Having considered the matter atlength and after hearing the rival contentions advanced at the Bar, we are ofthe view that though the judgment in Ram Singh (supra) itself is not prospective and the declaration oflaw therein would have its retrospective effect, nonetheless,in exercise ofthejurisdiction vested in us under Article 142ofthe Constitution,we are ofthe view thatthe rights vested in the first category ofapplicants i.e. who had been appointed as Probationary Officers in the State Bank of India would be entitled to have the benefit of such appointments.Itis Ordered accordingly.
7. The applicants in the second category would be entitled to complete their diploma/training course and on successful completion thereofwould be entitled for consideration for their appointments.
8. However,the third category ofapplicants having commenced the diploma/training course after the date ofthe judgment, we find it difficultto afford anv protection to the said group ofthe applicants before ns.
9. All interlocutory applications shall stand disposed ofin the above terms." (Emphasis by us)
8. Therefore,so far as persons belonging to the Jat caste who had been given appointmentinthe reserved categoiy asfalling under OBC,who were granted appointment prior to thejudgment by the Supreme Court rendered on 17.03.2015 were exempted from cancellation ofappointments as falling in the first category enumerated in the judgment on 12.04.2016 in Ram Singh(supra).
9. The second category ofcandidates were those who had commenced the diploma/training course in banking prior to the date ofjudgment dated 17.03.2015 and only formal letter of appointments were yet to be issued. The order dated 12.04.2016 protected this category as well. So far as LPA 312of2017 r persons who commenced theirtraining after 17.03.2015,whenthejudgment in Ram Singh (supra) was passed are concerned, as per the order dated 12.04.2016ofthe Supreme Court,they were notprotected.
10. The above orders ofthe Supreme Courtcameto be considered bythe respondent No.2 and a review regarding the implementation of the reservations in respect ofbeing granted under the OBC category to persons belonging to the Jat non-creamy layer for appointments. Upon such consideration, it was found that the appointment of the appellant by the respondent No.2 on 29.08.2016 was in contravention ofthe orders ofthe Supreme CourtinRamSingh(supra).
11. The appellant was admittedly appointed with the respondent No.2 only on 29.08.2016 as a Jat upon giving her the benefitofreservation in the OBC category, cannot be disputed that this was after the passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court on 17.03.2015; dismissal of the review petition on 21.07.2015 and issuance of the order of clarification on 12.04.2016. Therefore,it cannotbe disputed thatthe petitioner doesnotfall under either ofthetwo exempted categories mentioned above.
12. The order dated 03.03.2017 was passed by the respondent No.2 holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit ofthe reservation under the OBC category and her appointment to the post of Senior Scientific Officer in such category stood cancelled. In this background,the appellant wasreleased from the duty with immediate effect.
13. This cancellation of the appointment was assailed in W.P.(C) No.2347/2017,which came to be rejected on a consideration by the learned Single Judge ofthe law laid down by the Supreme Court. The appellant assails the dismissal of the writ petition by the order dated 15.03.2017 LPA 312of2017 hereby.
14. It is contented by Ms.Bhakti Pasrija Sethi, learned counsel for the appellantthat in order to accept the appointment which wasoffered bythe respondentNo.2.theappellanthad to foregothejob she wasthen holding. It IS submitted thatthe appellant was working as an AssistantProfessor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry in the Delhi Pharmaceutical Science and Research University(DPSRU),Govt.ofNOTofDelhiatthattime. Wefind that the learned Single Judge has noted this submission, as well as the statement ofthe appellant that her appointment with DPSRU was only on contractual basis and not an appointment of permanent nature. The appellant, therefore, would have no right to claim the post of Assistant Professor with the DPSRU.
15. Itis clearly evidentfrom the above narrationthatthe petitioner could nothavelegally beengranted the benefitofconsiderationorappointmenton 30.06.2016 under the OBC reserved category,given the authoritative and bindingjudicial pronouncementInRam Singh(supra),which was made as far back as on 17.03.2015.
16. The appointmentofthe appellantis,therefore,in contravention ofthe law. No reliefcould have been granted to her in the writ petition and the order dated 15.03.2017is unassailable. We,therefore,find no meritin this appeal,which is accordingly dismissed. actii^'chiejjdsTice APRIL28,2017/p ANUMALHOTRA,J 31T1C ^V.