Critical analysis of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Guroya vs Delhi Sub-Ordinate Services Selection Board [2016 (4) SCC 754

The judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts stated hereunder:

The Respondent Board invited application for selection to the post of Staff Nurses in the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi by publishing an advertisement in newspaper. The Appellant submitted the application form within the due date. The Appellant appeared in the examination and was short listed but was finally not selected for the reason that he had failed to submit the OBC Certificate before the last date for submission of the application form.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

Rendering ineligible an otherwise selected candidate only on the ground of non-submission of OBC Certificate within due date mentioned in the advertisement would amount to denial of equality of opportunity contemplated under Articles 14, 15, 16 & 39A of the Constitution of India.

My analysis of the captioned judgment is as under:

A.          The issue of equality so vigorously raised in this judgment is quite misplaced for the reason that reservation is anathema to the principle of equality. The principle of reservation is based on the policy of providing a crutch to the segments of society that have long suffered inequality in the past. Nevertheless, it would be futile for me to argue against the concept of reservation as it has received the primatur of the various Constitution Benches of the Apex Court. But the burning question that goes a begging is how long will you put a large segment of the population of this country on the crutches on the basis of the purported discrimination suffered by their forefathers? Will it not make them lame? When will they be declared as able-bodied citizens of this country, who can march with the unreserved citizens on equal basis? It would appear to any perceptive eye that the concept of equality has been given a very perverse and abysmal mould.

B.           De hors the aforesaid, it is anomalous to rely upon the concept of equality when the only question that deserved consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the captioned Judgment was whether the stipulation of the due date in an examination process is imbued with some sanctity or not and, further, whether, it is mandatory or directory in nature.

C.          The Apex Court in the judgment under analysis did not refer to its own judgment in the case of Bedanga Talukdar, where it held categorically that the selection process must be conducted strictly in accordance with stipulated selection procedure and that any relaxation, unless such power was reserved in the concerned advertisement, would be contrary to the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter, it can be said that this judgment is per incuriam.

D.          Admittedly, the Appellant in the captioned judgment did not submit his OBC Certificate alongwith the application form but he did submit it after the cut-off date. Nowhere in the judgment has it been stated clearly as to when the OBC Certificate was submitted by the Appellant. However, a careful perusal of the contentions would suggest that the OBC certificate was received by the employer after the cut-off date but before the declaration of result. The Apex Court doesn’t stipulate as to the permissible extent of the period of relaxation that can be granted to a candidate. However, it has referred, with approval, to a judgment of the High Court rendered in the case of Pushpa vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein it was held that the petitioners were entitled to submit the OBC Certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of reservation.