The Delhi High Court has expressed serious concern over the manner in which the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) has been regulating Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations, observing that a series of poorly-worded notifications, circulars and official communications, coupled with ambiguously worded recruitment advertisements, has created “utter chaos” for candidates as well as the courts.
The Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla made these observations on Friday while dismissing a writ petition filed by a candidate challenging the rejection of his candidature for the post of Special Educator under a recruitment advertisement issued by the Directorate of Education through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).
The Court observed that the repeated issuance of notifications and circulars, without clearly identifying the applicable policy in recruitment advertisements, had created uncertainty regarding entitlement to OBC reservation. It noted that several such disputes had come before it in the past year, with different parties relying on different government instructions, resulting in an undesirable state of legal uncertainty in matters relating to reservation.
The Bench remarked that recruitment advertisements should clearly specify the applicable eligibility criteria instead of merely stating that reservation would be governed by instructions, orders or circulars issued by the GNCTD from time to time. It observed that candidates cannot reasonably be expected to search through numerous government notifications or determine whether subsequent circulars have modified earlier ones.
According to the Court, such drafting was unfair to applicants and may even be legally unsustainable as it leaves candidates uncertain about their eligibility under the OBC, EWS, SC, ST or PwD categories.
The petition was filed by a candidate who had applied under the OBC category, contending that he was entitled to reservation because his caste formed part of the Central List of OBCs applicable to Delhi. Although he successfully cleared the written examination and reached the document verification stage, the DSSSB rejected his candidature after finding that his OBC certificate had been issued on the basis of an earlier certificate issued to his father by Bihar Bhawan rather than on the basis of a certificate issued by the GNCTD, as required under the recruitment advertisement.
The petitioner argued that once his caste was recognised in the Central List of OBCs for Delhi, he was entitled to reservation benefits. However, the respondents maintained that while his caste satisfied the eligibility criteria, the OBC certificate itself failed to comply with the specific requirements prescribed under Clause 5(iv) of the recruitment advertisement.
Examining the recruitment notification, the High Court observed that different clauses of the advertisement appeared to create confusion. While one clause extended reservation benefits in accordance with all instructions issued by the GNCTD from time to time, another restricted eligibility to candidates covered by two specific government communications issued in 2007 and 2016. A further clause imposed additional conditions regarding the issuance of OBC certificates, which did not expressly appear in the earlier government communications.
The Court harmoniously interpreted these provisions by drawing a distinction between eligibility based on caste and eligibility based on the prescribed certificate. It held that the government notifications determined whether a particular caste qualified as an OBC, whereas the recruitment advertisement separately prescribed the form and source of the OBC certificate that candidates were required to produce.
Although the petitioner’s caste satisfied the relevant government notifications, the certificate produced by him admittedly did not fulfil the certificate-specific conditions contained in the advertisement. The Bench held that the petitioner could not ignore the conditions of the recruitment advertisement after having applied pursuant to it without challenging its validity. Since the prescribed certificate requirement had not been satisfied, the rejection of his candidature by the DSSSB could not be faulted.
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court criticised the GNCTD for the confusing manner in which its OBC reservation policy had evolved. It observed that repeated notifications, circulars and ambiguously drafted recruitment advertisements had generated unnecessary litigation and uncertainty, emphasising that reservation policies affecting public employment must be implemented through clear, transparent and unambiguous eligibility conditions.
