KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR Vs. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us belongs to Ahir Community, which is stated to have been recognized as a backward class, vide Government of NCT of Delhi Notification dated 20.01.1995. He also claims to be a visually handicapped person. In February, 2008, Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, invited applications for appointment of teachers in Delhi. As regards OBC candidates, the requirement stipulated in the said advertisement was that they should obtain OBC Certificate, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi. The appellant applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and appeared in the written examinations held on 08.06.2008. The result of the first examination, which was an objective type examination, was declared in August, 2008, wherein the appellant was short-listed along with 12 other candidates and his name appeared in the category of OBC candidates. The result of the second and final examination, which was descriptive in nature, was published on 01.01.2009 and the appellant passed that examination as well. Following result of the second and final examination, the appellant submitted documents on 05.01.2009, which included OBC certificate, issued by Deputy Collector, Mogaon. However, no appointment letter was issued to the appellant. He, thereupon, filed WP(C) No. 9548/2009 before this Court on 01.06.2009, seeking a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter to him. In the meanwhile, the appellant also obtained an OBC certificate from the office of Deputy Commissioner (East District), Delhi. The writ petition was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant had not obtained OBC certificate from the Competent Authority in Delhi. The writ petition filed by the appellant having been dismissed, he is before us by way of this appeal.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant belongs to Ahir Community, which has been declared a backward class not only in the State from which the Certificate dated 01.06.2006 was issued to him, but also in NCT of Delhi, he should have been considered and appointed against one of the posts, reserved for OBC candidates. He also submitted that in any case the appellant having been obtained OBC certificate, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi on 05.06.2009, the respondents should now appoint him against such a post.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the advertisement, issued by Directorate of Education, inviting applications for appointment of teachers contained an express stipulation that the candidates, applying under OBC category, should submit OBC Certificate, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi. Admittedly, the aforesaid advertisement was not challenged by the appellant on any ground whatsoever, including that the said Directorate could not have insisted upon submission of OBC certificate issued from Delhi and he participated in the recruitment process, on the basis of the terms contained in the advertisement, including the term requiring submission of OBC certificate, issued from Delhi. It is by now settled proposition of law that a candidate who participates in a selection process on the basis of the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement inviting applications or the Recruitment Rules applicable to the advertised post cannot later challenge the terms and conditions, stipulated in the advertisement or the Recruitment Rules, prevailing at the time applications were invited. This issue has been examined by Supreme Court in a number of cases and there has been no change in the view taken by the Apex Court in this regard.