Candidates from reserved category can be appointed as court attendants even if not ‘ordinarily residents’ of Delhi: HC

The candidates had secured qualifying marks in the written examination and were shortlisted for the interview. However, while some candidates were permitted to appear for the interview but were subsequently not recommended for appointment on the ground that they had failed to submit any proof of being ‘ordinarily residents’ of Delhi, some candidates were not permitted to appear for the interview on the ground that their caste certificates were issued outside Delhi.

The high court Wednesday permitted the candidates to appear for the interview with the direction that the results be kept in a sealed cover pending the outcome of these pleas.

The high court observed that it is well settled that “providing special treatment for the under-privileged” is guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. It further observed that the treatment of unequals as equals is a “well recognised form of discrimination”.

While delivering the judgment, the high court referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court and the high court on this issue. “It is clear from the above that the controversy with regard to extending the benefit of reservation in employment to the services under the State/Union Territory revolved, essentially, on the question whether the benefit of the Presidential order notifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union Territory could be extended to grant benefits in another State/Union Territory,” the HC observed.

The high court noted that the Supreme Court in a 2018 judgment had held that Delhi enjoys a “special status in as much as it has the power to enact laws on any of the subjects in List II & List III of the Constitution”. Examining the scheme of appointment to subordinate services in the state, the apex court had held that for Delhi “pan-India reservation rule is applicable”.

“Thus, all candidates belonging to reserved categories notified by the Presidential Order in any State or Union Territory would be entitled to benefit of reservation in the subordinate services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi,” the high court held. The court, however, noted that the decisions on this issue did not deal with the question of domicile or the disqualification of an SC/ST member from the benefits of reservation based on residential status.

The high court noted that the Delhi High Court establishment had denied the benefit of reservation to the candidates on the sole ground that they were unable to produce certificates as “ordinarily residents of Delhi”. “It is important to note that in terms of the notification, applications were invited from all citizens of this country without any qualification as to their place of residence. It is also not the case of the establishment that persons belonging to SC/ST of another state are not eligible to apply to the post of court attendant/room attendant as advertised in terms of the notification,” the HC held. Further, general category candidates were not required to establish their domicile in Delhi for qualification.

Holding that there was no basis for the candidates’ disqualification, the high court held, “The requirement for a candidate to be an ordinarily resident of Delhi has been carved out only in respect of candidates, who claim reservation by virtue of belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as notified in relation to a state other than National Capital Territory of Delhi.”

The high court held that if a candidate furnishes a certificate of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he cannot be denied the benefit of reservation as specified under the notification. Allowing the pleas, the high court directed the Delhi High Court establishment to consider the appointment of the petitioners to the advertised posts under the reserved category “without insisting that they establish that they are ordinarily residents of Delhi”, subject to them qualifying on merit.