The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the rejection of a candidate's selection for the post of Special Educator under the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), holding that he failed to satisfy the specific OBC certificate requirement mentioned in the recruitment advertisement. At the same time, the Court expressed concern over the confusing and inconsistent government instructions governing OBC reservation in Delhi.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shashi, had applied as an Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate under Advertisement No. 04/20 issued for recruitment of Special Educators by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. He successfully cleared the written examination and reached the document verification stage.
However, DSSSB rejected his candidature through a notice dated June 30, 2022, stating that his OBC certificate had been issued on the basis of his father's certificate from Bihar. As a result, he was treated as an "OBC (Outsider)." Since he had not secured the minimum qualifying marks in the Unreserved (UR) category, he was also found ineligible for appointment.
The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the rejection, prompting the petitioner to challenge the decision before the Delhi High Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla examined the recruitment advertisement along with various government notifications governing OBC reservation in Delhi.
The petitioner argued that his caste, Yadav, was included in the Central List of OBCs applicable to Delhi and that this entitled him to reservation benefits. The respondents, however, maintained that the advertisement required more than merely belonging to a recognized OBC community.
The Court agreed that the petitioner's caste qualified as an OBC in Delhi. Nevertheless, it found that the advertisement specifically required an OBC certificate issued by the Delhi Government to be based on an earlier certificate issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi to a family member. Since the petitioner's certificate had been issued on the basis of his father's Bihar certificate, it failed to satisfy this mandatory condition.
The Bench observed,
"The OBC certificate produced by the petitioner did not satisfy Clause 5(iv) of the Advertisement."
Court Criticises Confusing Reservation Policy
While dismissing the petition, the Court also made strong observations about the manner in which the Delhi Government had framed its OBC reservation policy.
The Bench remarked that multiple notifications, circulars and letters issued over the years had created unnecessary uncertainty.
The Court observed, "The GNCTD has... created utter chaos" by issuing several notifications and ambiguously worded advertisements, making it difficult for candidates—and even courts—to determine eligibility with certainty. It further noted that candidates should not be expected to search through numerous government circulars to understand whether they qualify for reservation benefits.
Despite these observations, the Court held that the recruitment advertisement had not been challenged and therefore its conditions had to be enforced as written.
Decision
The High Court concluded that although the petitioner belonged to an OBC community recognized for reservation in Delhi, the certificate submitted by him did not meet the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement. Since he also failed to qualify under the Unreserved category, the rejection of his candidature was legally justified
Case Details:
Case Title: Shashi v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15195/2022
Judge: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Decision Date: 03 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
