CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH DIRECTOR PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, SECTOR Vs. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the impugned order and judgment dated 20.04.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") whereby claim of respondent No.2-Ms. Nisha Rani for appointment as Staff Nurse on her selection in the category of Other Backward Class (OBC) has been allowed.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Petitioner No.1 - Director Principal Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh issued an advertisement dated 26.05.2012 in the Newspaper inviting online applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 409 posts of Staff Nurse for GMCH 32 and GMSH 16, Chandigarh. The last date for submission of online applications was 16.07.2012. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 issued a corrigendum in the newspaper on 12.07.2012 that backlog of Scheduled Castes was being enhanced in the reservation since 2005 onwards and not because of nonavailability of candidates in the previous selection in GMCH. Similarly, there was also backlog of Other Backward Class vacancies. The backlog of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes was to be filled up first during the current selection and these candidates were to stand senior to the other candidates. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, it had been mentioned at Serial No.6 (i) under the heading "Other General Conditions" that "the number of posts and reservation thereof are tentative and can increase or decrease subject to confirmation of roster point by Social Welfare Department/Employment Exchange, UT, Chandigarh. The Department reserves the right to reject/cancel any application or withdraw the posts at any time without assigning any reasons or without any notice whatsoever." Respondent No.2 who belongs to 'Luhar' Caste which had been declared as Other Backward Class in the State of Haryana, applied online for the said post under the OBC category. She was issued Roll No.26693. Thereafter, the Chairman, Selection Committee issued merit wise list of selected candidates under the OBC category and the name of respondent No.2 was shown at Serial No.39. The petitioner issued corrigendum dated 21.09.2012, Annexure R.1 clarifying that definition of Other Backward Class in UT Chandigarh was that "the Caste of OBC should be reflected in both Central List as well as UT List." In order to correct this discrepancy, only the OBC candidates who fell in UT as well as Central List were to be considered on the basis of their merit in the OBC category. The candidates who had applied under OBC category but were not covered under the UT as well as Central List were to be considered in the General Category according to merit. Vide letter dated 23.12.2003, Annexure R.II, the benefit of reservation to OBC category in UT Chandigarh was to be extended on the pattern of Central Government wherein the OBC would have to be included in the Central List and UT Chandigarh List. A meeting was held on 21.11.2012, Annexure R.III under the chairmanship of Director-Principal, GMCH to discuss the issue regarding genuineness of OBC certificate submitted by the OBC candidates. A decision was taken to advise all the candidates to submit a fresh OBC certificate by 25.10.2012. It was further decided that the candidates of Caste strictly as per the spellings mentioned in both UT and Central Lists were to be given the benefit of reservation under OBC category. At the time of scrutinizing the application of respondent No-2, it was revealed from OBC certificate attached by her along with the application that she belonged to 'Luhar' Caste. As per UT OBC List at Serial No.29 and Central List meant for UT, Chandigarh at Serial No.11, the benefit of reservation in OBC category was only to be given to 'Bhuhalia Lohar'. As such, fresh OBC certificate indicating specifically 'Bhuhalia Lohar', was required to be submitted by respondent No.2 for establishing her eligibility under OBC category. Respondent No.2 was requested vide letter dated 11.10.2012, Annexure R. IV to submit fresh OBC certificate by 25.10.2012. She failed to submit the said certificate. Thereafter, the Chairman Selection Committee issued corrected merit list of General Category and Other Backward Class category for the posts of Staff Nurse on 09.10.2012 on GMCH website. The name of respondent No.2 was shown in corrected merit list of OBC at Serial No.8 subject to the condition that 'Bhuhalia Lohar' was eligible to be considered in OBC category. The Caste certificate reflected 'Luhar' only. Fresh certificate mentioning 'Bhuhalia Lohar' needed to be furnished by respondent No.2, failing which she was not to be considered in OBC category. Respondent No.2 failed to submit the said certificate. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed application before the Tribunal challenging the action of the petitioner- Department. Written statement was filed by the petitioner-Department controverting the averments made by respondent No.2. Vide order dated 24.07.2013, Annexure P.6, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Respondent No.2 filed review application, Annexure P.7, for reviewing the order dated 31.07.2013. Neither the counsel for respondent No.2 nor respondent No.2 appeared. Vide order dated 21.05.2014, Annexure P.8, the Tribunal dismissed the review application for non-prosecution. Respondent No.2 moved another application before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27.03.2015, Annexure P.9, the Tribunal allowed the application and restored the original application to its original number. Vide order dated 20.04.2015, Annexure P.1, the Tribunal allowed the original application filled by respondent No.2 on the ground that similar question had already been decided by this Court in CWP No. 2648 of 2013 (Chandigarh Administration Vs. Sunil Kumar and another) . Hence the instant petition by the petitioners.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.