28.11.2024
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
Appointment
on the post of Grade IV (DASS)/LDC under OBC Category in Govt. of NCT of Delhi
– DSSSB rejected the candidature on the ground that the applicant did not
possess a valid OBC certificate – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), in OA
No. 4520/2017, directed the Revenue Department to conduct a detailed enquiry as
to whether the applicant belongs to OBC category or not, and “if the
applicant is found to be belonging to the OBC category, he shall be given all
such benefits, as are accordingly available” – Delhi Government/DSSSB
failed to grant appoint appointment to the applicant despite Revenue Department
declaring that the applicant belongs to OBC (Delhi) category – CAT, in a
contempt petition filed by the aggrieved candidate/applicant, directed the
DSSSB/Delhi Government to grant appointment to the applicant with notional
seniority w.e.f. 10.07.2019. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated
28.11.2024 reads as under: -
“12.
We observe that in Contempt proceedings, the Courts/Tribunals are concerned
with implementation of the order(s) in its letter and spirit. The
Courts/Tribunals cannot go into the merits of the case in Contempt, which we
are being now compelled to enter into. In case the orders passed by this Court
are not implemented, it will lead to a situation where each department of the Government
will be raising objections to the statement made by the other Department. This
will be a never-ending process. Obviously, the Courts are not concerned with
the methodology or procedure adopted to comply with its order.
13.
Undoubtedly, in the captioned Original Application, in which the order dated
25.04.2019 was passed, the DSSSB as well as Revenue Department were the
parties. The said order dated 25.04.2019 has not been challenged by any of the
parties till date, thus attaining finality. The proper recourse for
implementation of the directions in terms of para 12 of final order would have
been that the DSSSB either could have called for the report from Revenue Authorities
or constituted a Committee to arrive at just decision before passing the order
dated 09.07.2019. The office order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the DSSSB and 10.07.2019
passed by the Revenue Department are apparently without caring to consult each
other, which has led to an anomalous and peculiar situation. We would say that
high volume of recruitment process and lack of coordination between these
interrelated authorities needlessly complicate contempt litigation wherein the respondents
for justifying their actions file compliance affidavits one after the other. In
such a situation, we can give the respondents a benefit of doubt to a certain
extent. The objectives of contempt proceedings concern compliance of order in
letter and spirit. An act of disobedience can insult a court’s dignity; an
insult against a court’s dignity can arise from an act of disobedience. The present
case is not a case of direct contempt but a constructive contempt that is due
to lack of co-ordination amongst two different departments of the Government.
14.
The Tribunal possesses both inherent and implied constitutional authority to
correct disobedience. Nothing under the Contempt of Court Act, 1981 and Rules
thereto, can be construed to detract from the Tribunal its authority to correct
defiance of its orders through civil contempt proceedings. Lack of coordination
between the inter-related authorities has needlessly complicated the present Contempt
Petition as validity of OBC certificate was never in question. The directions
in para 12 of the order dated 25.04.2019 were confined only to the fact, as to
whether, the applicant belongs to OBC category or not. For the said purpose, a
detailed enquiry was held in favour of applicant. There is no denial to the
fact that vide Order dated 10.07.2019, the Revenue Authorities had come to conclusion
that the applicant belongs to JAT community in OBC category and fulfills the
condition for issuance of OBC certificate in JAT Community of Delhi State being
a resident of Delhi before 08.09.1993. Without waiting for the outcome of the
enquiry conducted by the Revenue Department, the DSSSB acted independently and
passed the order dated 09.07.2019 which shows lack of coordination amongst each
other.
15.
To put a quietus to the issue, the Contempt Petition is closed with a
directions to the competent authority amongst the respondents to correct the
defiance and comply with the directions passed by this Tribunal vide its order
dated 25.04.2019 in the captioned O.A., uninfluenced by the order dated
09.07.2019 passed by the DSSSB and by taking note of the finding arrived at in favour
of applicant vide order dated 10.07.2019 issued by the Competent Authority,
i.e., D.M (West), Government of NCT of Delhi. The respondents shall take
corrective measures in co-ordination with each other and grant consequential
relief(s) in terms of para 12 the directions passed by the Tribunal in its
final order dated 25.04.2019 within a period of three months from date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16.
In peculiar facts of the case, the offer of appointment to be issued to the
applicant shall be treated as a fresh appointment and the same is to be
adjusted against future vacancies. The applicant shall not be entitled to any
arrears of pay, however, shall be entitled to notional seniority w.e.f. dated
10.07.2019.”
[Lal
Singh Vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar Dev, Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, &
Ors., C.P. No. 108/2020 in OA No. 4520/2017, decided on 28.11.2024, Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj
Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A,
First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New
Delhi - 110014
483,
Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi
High Court, New Delhi-110003
Mobile
– 9891403206
Landline
– 011 - 35554905
Email
– anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment