Raman Lamba vs Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-

In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

The Applicant participated in the selection process conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2020, for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code 87/20) in the Directorate of Education. The Applicant secured 96.83 marks as against the OBC cut-off of 71.56 marks. Pursuant thereto, an Offer of Appointment was issued to the Applicant on 13.10.2022. Subsequently, the Respondents issued a Deficiency Memo dated 15.06.2026, calling upon the Applicant to furnish a valid OBC Non-Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) certificate for the year 2019-20. The Applicant contends that he had already submitted an OBC-NCL certificate dated 06.09.2022, which specifically certified that he was in the Non-Creamy Layer category during the financial year 2019-20. According to the Applicant, the said certificate, therefore, substantially and specifically satisfied the requirement sought to be raised by the Respondents. The Applicant, accordingly, submitted a representation dated 30.06.2026, challenging the aforesaid deficiency and asserting that no further certificate for the relevant financial year was warranted. The Applicant has further relied upon the case of one Shri Manish Rana, stated to be similarly situated, contending that the said candidate was extended the benefit of OBC-NCL status on the basis of a certificate issued on 17.08.2022 certifying his status for the financial year 2019-20. It is, thus, the contention of the Applicant that similarly situated candidates were permitted to avail the benefit of OBC-NCL certificates issued subsequent to the prescribed cut-off date, whereas the same treatment has not been extended to him despite his having produced a certificate dated 06.09.2022 specifically certifying his OBC-NCL status for the financial year 2019-20. According to the Applicant, such differential treatment is arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the Applicant, therefore, essentially concerns the insistence of the Respondents upon production of a further OBC-NCL certificate and the consequential withholding/non-processing of his appointment, notwithstanding his having qualified in the selection process and having furnished a certificate certifying his OBC-NCL status for the relevant financial year.

Learned counsel for the Applicant has also drawn our attention to the certificate issued by the competent authority on 06.09.2022, which reads as under:

Learned counsel for the Applicant has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8304/2025, titled Raghvendra Singh & Anr. v. UPSC & Anr., pronounced on 10.12.2025.

Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the Respondents on advance notice. He submits that although he has not received appropriate instructions in the matter, he would, on merits, contend that the principle of negative equality cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the treatment extended to Shri Manish Rana. According to him, the benefit, if any, extended to another candidate cannot, by itself, confer an enforceable right upon the Applicant.

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the rival contentions at this stage, we are of the considered view that the matter requires examination by the Respondents themselves. The issue relates to appointment/selection to a public post and, therefore, the Respondents are required to place on record and examine the factual basis on which Shri Manish Rana was extended the benefit of OBC-NCL status on the basis of a certificate issued on 17.08.2022 certifying his status for the financial year 2019-20. If the Applicant is found to be similarly situated to Shri Manish Rana in all material respects, the Respondents would be required to consider whether the same treatment ought to be extended to the Applicant, particularly in view of the certificate dated 06.09.2022 furnished by him, which specifically records his Non-Creamy Layer status for the financial year 2019-20, as well as the subsequent Deficiency Memo dated 15.06.2026 issued by the Respondents themselves. It is clarified that we are not expressing any final opinion on the Applicant's entitlement to appointment or on the applicability of the principle of negative equality. The competent authority shall independently examine the Applicant's case in accordance with law, the applicable recruitment conditions and the relevant records, including the circumstances in which Shri Manish Rana was granted the benefit relied upon by the Applicant.

Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to consider and decide the Applicant's representation dated 30.06.2026 afresh. While doing so, the competent authority shall specifically examine whether the Applicant is similarly situated to Shri Manish Rana and whether the OBC-NCL certificate dated 06.09.2022 furnished by the Applicant satisfies the requirement relating to the financial year 2019-20. In the event the competent authority finds the Applicant to be similarly situated to Shri Manish Rana and otherwise eligible for appointment, appropriate consequential action, including issuance of the Offer/Appointment Order, shall be taken in accordance with law. In the event the competent authority takes a contrary view, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the Applicant. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The Original Application is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage in the above terms. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.