The Delhi High Court in a recent order while upholding appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate from Rajasthan said that Delhi is a city of migrants and benefit of reservation to any particular category cannot be denied, just because they obtained the caste certificate from a different state.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) against Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate as a Staff Nurse with Delhi Government’s health ministry in pursuant to an Advertisement published in 2009. His candidature was rejected as his caste certificate was issued by Rajasthan.
A bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia said that it is not in dispute that NCT of Delhi being Union Territory for all purposes, except for running administration, is of migrants.
The SC candidate was declared successful in 2011 but his name was not mentioned in the final list of appointments. He was informed by the authorities that his candidature was not considered under ‘reserved category’ as the Caste Certificate provided by him was issued by Rajasthan government.
The candidate challenged his rejection contending that as per a letter issued by the Delhi Government, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates irrespective of their nativity shall be eligible for reservation to the civil posts under the GNCTD.
To defend his appointment, he relied upon an order passed by CAT which had upheld appointment in a similar case in 2011 and had directed the authorities to consider their candidature.
The DSSSB however argued that between August 04, 2009 till September 12, 2012, the benefit of reservation was not extended to SC/ST candidates in view of the decision of the Supreme Court verdict.
The bench was informed that candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category were being granted benefits of reservations irrespective of their domicile.
“In such a situation, the State of NCT of Delhi is giving reservation to one category and denying to the other category, which is sheer discrimination to the category in question in the present case, and cannot be permitted,” the court said.