MCDversusVEENA AND ORS.

                                  M.C.D.                                       A

                           VEENA AND ORS.

                           AUGUST 14, 2001

       [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]                             B

     Service Law :
                            I
      Appointment-Reservation-Candidates belonging to other Backward
Classes-Claim for appointment under one state on the basis of certificates     C
issued by another State-Government of N.C. T. of Delhi-Notification stating
that certificate issued by specified authorities only will be accepted-
Application rejected as not in proper order-Validity of-Held, specification
of a particular caste as OBC in one State does not necessarily mean that the
persons· belonging to same nomenclature in other State would be entitled to
same rights and privileges-Rejection of application, just and proper-          D
However, candidates entitled to be considered for appointment i~ general
category-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 16(4), 341 and 342.

      Municipal Corporation of Delhi invited applications for appointments
to the posts of Primary and Nursery teachers. A notification was issued E
requiring candidates seeking reservation to submit in proof of their claim
the certificate issued by the competent authorities. Applications of the
candidates claiming reservation under other backward classes on the basis
of certificates issued in their respective States other than Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi, were ~ejected. The respondents filed writ
petitions which were allowed by the High Court observing that the F
advertisement issued by the appellant-Corporation did not indicate the form
in which OBC certificates were to be filed and, therefore, there was no
obligation on the respondents to produce such certificate only from the
prescribed authority in Delhi. High Court held that the certificates were in
order and directed the appellant-Corporation to proceed with the selection G
process. Hence the present appeal by Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

     On behalf of appellants it was contended that a person belonging to a
particular group in OBC in .relation to his original State of which he was
a permanent or ordinary resident could not be deeme.d to be so in relation

                                   493                                         H
     494                    SUPRt::ME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A to any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment
     or education in that State, and such question would be examined with reference
     to situation in the State to which he migrated.

            On behalf of respondent-candidates it was contended that since there
     was no specific mention in the notification as to the manner in which the
B    certificates were to be produced in proof of their caste, the view taken by the
     High Court was justified.

           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

           HELD : I. High Court was not justified in directing the appellant
C    corporation to proceed with the selection process by "treating the certificates
     of respondent-candidates to be in order. The High Court erred in ignoring
     the necessary notification issued in regard to classification ofOBC categories
     in the matter of verification thereof. 1499-E; 496-FI

          2. I. Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or
D   Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste
    belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for
    which it is specified. Merely because a given caste is specified in one State
    as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another
    group belonging to the same nomenclature in other State and a person
E   belonging to that group is entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits
    admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects have to be borne in
    mind while interpreting the provisions of the Constitution with reference to
    application of reservation to OBCs. 1497-E, G, H; 498-AI

           2.2. In the instant case, a careful reading of the Government notification
F   dated 15.I 1.1993 and Annexure 'AA' thereto would indicated that the OBCs
    would be recognised as such in the National Capital Territory of Delhi as
    notified in the notification dated 20.1.1995 and further for the purpose of
    verification of claim regarding Castes/Communities in Delhi as per the list
    notified by the National Capital Territory of Delhi the certificates will have
G   to be issued by the specified authorities and certificates issued by any other
    authority could not be accepted. The Government of India has also issued
    instructions from time to time in this regard which indicated that a person
    belonging to OBC on migration from the State of his origin in another State
    where his caste :was not in the OBC list was entitled to the benefits or
    concessions admissible to the OBCs in his State of Origin and Union
H   Government, but not in the State to which he has migrated. (499-C, D, E(
                   M.C.D. v. VEENA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]                    495
      Action Committee on Issues of Caste Certificates to Scheduled Castes       A
 and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of India
 and Anr., (1994( 5 SCC 244; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Geth G.S.
 Medical College '-nd Ors., [1990) 3 SCC 130 and Dadaji alias Dina v.
 Sukhdeobabu and Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 621, referred to.

      3. The respondent-candidates have made applications as if they belong      B
to OBCs on the basis of the certificates issued by the State from which they
migrated to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, but if the certificates
issued in their original States of which Otey are permanent or ordinary
residents were not good, the applications should. have been treated as if they
had been made in the general category and cases of the respondent-candidates     C
ought to have been considered in general category. Their cases shall be
treated under the general category and examined accordingly; and they shall
be appointed in the appropriate posts of primary and nursery teachers if they
have attained the necessary merit in the select list. (499-F, G; 500-C)

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3045 of                  D
1998.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.98 of the Delhi High Court in
C.W.P. 4821 of 1996.

                                    WITH                                         E
        C.A. Nos. 3046/1998, 3049/1998, 3044/1998 and 3048/1998.

        A.K. Ganguli and Ms. Indra Sawhney for the Appellant.

     Rajiv Dutta, and R. Mohan, Amit Khemka, K.P. Singh, Ashwani Bhardwaj,       F
Abhishek Atery, S.P. Sharma, Harinder Mohan Singh, Rubinder Pal Ghumman,
Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan and S.K. Verma for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      RAJENDRA BABU, J. In these cases we have to decide the issue as            G
to whether the certificates of candidates belonging to backward classes in
States other than Delhi could hold good for the purpose of recruitment to the
post of primary and nursery teachers in Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the
National Capital Territory of Delhi. An ancillary question would also arise as
to whether the Other Backward Classes (for short 'OBCs') of the States other
than Delhi can be treated as OBCs in Delhi and can be extended the benefits      H
     496                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A    related thereto in Delhi.

           The facts leading to the present cases, in brief, are as follows:

           Applications were invited from Indian citizens for appointment to the
     posts of primary and nursery teachers in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
B    on 16.7.1996. In the course of the notification the following was mentioned
     by a Note :

             "NOTE : Candidates, seeking reservation as ST/SC/OBC/Exs/OH may
             submit the prescribed certificate from the competent authority in
             support of their claim with applications. The reservation policy to the
c            categories of ST/SC/OBC/Exs and Physically Handicapped candidates
             shall be followed in accordance with the latest policy of Central/Delhi
             Government."

          The respondent-candidates claimed to belong to OBCs on the basis of
   certificate issued in a State other than the Government of National Capital
D Territory of Delhi. The applications filed by the respondent-candidates stood
    rejected. The respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court and the
    High Court by a common order made on I 0.3.1998 held that the advertisement
   issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi did not indicate the Form in
   which the OBCs certificates have to be filed in respect of posts arising in the
E National Capital Territory of Delhi and, therefore, there was no obligation on
   the respondents to produce such certificate from the prescribed authorities
   in Delhi; that the obligation to produce the certificate from authorities in Delhi
   could not be fulfilled by candidates coming from outside Delhi and, therefore,
   what is impossible could not be expected to be fulfilled by the respondents
  ·and on that basis, the High Court directed to treat the applications filed by
F the respondents to be in order and proceed to make selections. It is this order
   that is in challenge before us.

           Shri A.K. Ganguli, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
    appellants, submitted that a person belonging to a particular group in OBC
G   in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or ordinary resident
    cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to
    that State for the purpose of employment or education in that State, as such
    question will have to be examined with reference to situation in the State to ·
    which he migrates. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in
    Action Committee on Issues of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and
H   Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Union of India &
                 M.C.D. v. VEENA (RAJENDRA BABU, J.]                       497
Anr., [1994) 5 sec 244, in which the question in relation to the interpretation   A
of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution arose for consideration as to
whether a person belonging to SC/ST in relation to his original State of which
he is permanent or ordinary resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation
to any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose o( employment
or education. In that case, this Court relied upon the decision in Marri          B
Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College and Ors., [1990)
3 SCC 130. Again in relation to Scheduled Castes ahd Scheduled Tribes this
Court in Dadaji alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu & Ors., [1980) I SCC 621,
considered the question as to whether "Gone!' caste would include "Mana"
or not. This Court .examined the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and held that it was     C
not permissible where there are two communities with the same name, one
having affinity with a particular tribe and the other having no such affinity
and both cannot be treated as Scheduled Tribes.

        The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-candidates, however,
 supported the judgment of the High Court and contended that when there           D
 was no specific mention in the notification as to the manner in which the
·certificates have to be produced before the appellants to indicate that the
 respondent-candidates belong to any particular OBC group and the view
 taken by the High Court is justified.

       Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union
                                                                                  E
 Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste belonging
 to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for which it is
 specified. The matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying
 a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on
 the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that F
 caste or group in that State. However, it may not be so in another State to
which a person belongs thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste
 bel.onging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the
considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally
different. So the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute G
the data for specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely because.
a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not
necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same
nomenclature in other State and a person belonging to that group is entitled
to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste.
These asp~cts have to be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the H ·
    498                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Constitution with reference to application of reservation to OBCs.

           It is clear that the Government of India had notified on 15.11.1993 two
    model Forms of Certificates to be furnished by the OBC candidates seeking
    benefit of reservations. Form prescribed in Annexure 'A' thereto was required
    to be produced by candidates belonging to OBCs applying for appointment
B   to posts under the Government of India and which certificate was to be
    verified from the prescribed authorilies indicated therein and a Note was
    added thereto to the_ effect that for Government of the National Capital
    Territory of Delhi Annexure 'AA' was required to be fulfilled. Annexure 'AA'
    prescribes a different kind of certificate which reads as follows:
c          "ANNEXVRE 'AA'

          Form of Certificate to be produced by other backward classes applying
    for appointments to posts under the Government of National Capital Territory
    of Delhi.
D

          This is to certify that ________ s/o _________ of village
    _ _ _ _ _ District/Division                  State              belongs to the
    _ _ _ community which is recognised as backward class under the
E   Government ofNCT of Delhi notified vide Notification No. F.88(93)/91-92/SC/
    ST/P&S/4384 date : 20.01.1995 published in the Gazette of Delhi Extraordinary
    Part-IV dated: and/or his family ordinarily reside(s) in the            District/
    Division. Division of the                State. This is also to certify that he/
    she does not belong to the Persons/Sections (Creamy layer) mentioned in
F   Column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personnel
    and Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993.

    Dtd:                                                   District Magistrate
                                                           Dy. Commissioner etc.,

                 Seal
G
            NB

           a. The Term 'Ordinarily' used here will have the same meaning as in
           Sec. 20 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950.

H           b. For the purpose of verification of claims for belonging to castes/
                   M.C.D. v. VEENA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]                         499
         communities in Delhi as per the list notified by the NCT of Delhi, the       A
         certificate from the following authorities only will be accepted :-
                                                         (
         (i).   District Magistrate, Delhi

         (ii). Addi. District Magistrate, Delhi.

         (iii). Deputy Commissioner, Delhi.                                           B
         (iv). Addi. Deputy Commissioner, Delhi.

         (v). Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi.

         (vi). Executive Magistrate, Delhi."

A careful reading of this notification would indicate that the OB<;:s would be        C
recognised as such in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
as notified in the Notification dated 20.01.1995 and further for the purpose of
verification of claims for belonging to castes/communities in Delhi as per the
list notified by the National Capital Territory of Delhi the certificates will have
to be issued only by the specified authorities and certificates issued by any         D
other authority could not be accepted. The Government of India has also
issued instructions from time to time in this regard which indicated that a
person belonging to OBC on migration from the State of his origin in another
State where his caste was not in the OBC list was entitled to the benefits or
concessions admissible to the OBCs in his State of origin and Union
Government, but not in the State to which he has migrated. Thus the High              E
Court lost sight of these ~spects of the matter in making the impugned order
in either ignoring the necessary notifications issued in regard to classification
of OBC categories or in the matter of verification thereof. Thus the order made
by ·the High Court in this regard deserves to be reversed.

       However, one aspect has to be borne in mind and that is the respondent·        F
candidates had made applications as if they belong to OBCs on the basis of
the certificates issued by the State from which they migrated to the National
Capital Territory of Delhi, but if the certificates issued in their original States
of which they are permanent or ordinary residents were not good, the
applications should have been treated as if they had been made in the general         G
category and cases of the respondent-candidates ought to have been
considered in general category. Therefore, to the extent, the applicants have
attained necessary merit in the general list, they deserve to be appointed.

     The learned counsel for the appel Iants, however, pleaded that the
respondent-candidates having applied for the posts as if they belong to OBC           H
    500                    SUPREME C(,>URT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A groups their applications could not be treated as falling under general category.
    We fail to appreciate this contention. The particulars furnished by the
    respondent-candidates clearly give in detail their general qualifications and
    eligibility. The only additional aspect stated by them in their respective
    applications or in the Certificates supported thereto is that they belong to
B   OBC categories. Hence, their cases ought to have been considered in the
    general category as if they do not belong to OBC categories in the.
    circumstances arising in this case.

         We, therefore, in allowing the~e appeals, direct that the cases of the
  respondent-candidates shall be treated as if they do not belong to OBC
C groups but to fall under the general category and their cases shall be examined
  and they shall be appointed in the appropriate posts of primary and nursery
  teachers if they have attained the necessary me'rit in the select list. This
  exercise shall be done within a period of three months from today. It is
  brought to our notice that there are several vacancies still available with the
  appellants in this category of posts and no difficulty would arise in the matter
D of appointing the respondent-candidates to those posts. However, if any
  difficulty arises, it shall be the duty of the appellants to create appropriate
  posts and appoint the respondent-candidates to such vacancies falling under
  general category.

E         The order made by the Hi~h Court is set aside with modified directions
    set forth above. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.

    S.V.K.                                                      Appeals allowed.