Ajit Singh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

The applicant was appointed as a Book Lifter (Civil) in Delhi Police on regular basis in the year 2003 vide Annexure A-5 appointment letter dated 25.02.2003 and joined the said post.

Pursuant to Annexure A-2 Advertisement No.02/2010 of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) inviting applications for various posts, namely, the post of Librarian (Post Code 69/10), the applicant applied for the said post under OBC category. The last date for submission of applications was 30.07.2010. The written examination, pursuant to Annexure A-2 Advertisement, could not be held. In the meanwhile, the DSSSB came out with another Annexure A-3 Advertisement No.01/13 inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Librarian (Post Code 02/13), for which the last date of submission of applications was 20.03.2013. The applicant applied for the said post also under OBC category, as is evident from his Annexure A-6 application for the post.

For both the Post Codes, i.e., 69/10 and 02/13, a common Annexure A-7 admit card, bearing Roll No. 69001913, was issued to the applicant. A common written examination was held on 31.08.2014. Annexure A-8 Result Notice No.447 dated 15.03.2016 came to be published indicating therein that the applicant has been selected for the Post Code 69/10 under OBC category having secured 121.75 marks. Accordingly, he was issued Annexure A-10 appointment letter dated 29.04.2016 and order of appointment dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure A-11). He joined as Librarian under the Directorate of Education on 09.09.2016 (Annexure A-12).

The respondents issued impugned Annexure A-1 revised Result Notice as per the directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.6131/2017 dated 25.09.2017 titled DSSSB & others v. Vijeta Kundu & others. Apparently, the Hon'ble High Court in the said case, qua Result Notice No.595 dated 09.11.2017 (Annexure A-1) relating to the post of Librarian (Post Code 69/10), had directed that some of the candidates, whose candidatures were rejected as their one year computer diploma, obtained from other institutes had not been considered, are to be considered. The DSSSB was accordingly directed by the Hon'ble High Court to revise the Result Notice. The applicant did not find his name in the Annexure A-1 Result Notice, however, his name figured at No.1 in the wait list under the OBC category.

Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the Annexure A-1Result Notice, the applicant has approached this Tribunal in the instant O.A. praying for the following relief:-

"a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09/11/2017 (Annexure A/1) to the extent it relates to the applicant and direct continuance of applicant's service till superannuation."

The applicant has pleaded the following important grounds in support of the relief claimed:

5.1 The applicant was never put to notice before the impugned Annexure A-1 Result Notice dated 09.11.2017 was published, excluding him from the list of selected candidates under OBC category.

5.2 The applicant cannot be deprived of his appointment after 10 months of his joining on the post of Librarian.

5.3 The respondents ought to have computed the un-filled notified vacancies to the post of Librarian and accommodated the applicant against one such vacant post.

5.4 If for any reasons the applicant's candidature could not be considered for the Post Code 69/10, then he ought to have been considered against the Post Code 02/13.

5.5 Although the applicant, on the last date of submission of applications, i.e., 20.03.2017 for Post Code 02/13, was 36 years old, his date of birth, being 04.03.1977, he was entitled for age relaxation of 3 years for belonging to OBC category and another 5 years for having worked on regular post in Delhi Police.

Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, in which they have broadly made the following important averments:-

6.1 The Annexure A-1 Result Notice No.595 dated 09.11.2017 has been issued in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Vijeta Kundu (supra). Some of the candidates earlier rejected were not included in the select list as one year computer diploma obtained by them were not from the registered Institutes, but they were to be considered as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

6.2 The applicant, bearing Roll No.69001913, was earlier provisionally selected under Post Code 69/03 vide Result Notice No.447 dated 15.03.2016 under OBC category. He had secured 121.75 marks, which were more than the cut-off marks, i.e., 121.25, for the OBC category. But in terms of the Annexure A-1 Result Notice, the cut-off mark for OBC category became 132 marks, and as such, the applicant could not be selected under the said category.

On completion of pleadings, the case was taken up for hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties on 21.08.2018. Arguments of Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for applicant and Mrs. P K Gupta, learned counsel for respondents were heard.

Besides reiterating the averments made in the O.A., Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for applicant drew our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh & others v. State of U.P. & others (Civil Appeal No.367/2017 with connected petitions) decided on 11.12.2017.

The controversy involved in that case was in regard to re-evaluation of answers to certain questions in the written examination. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in its judgment dated 11.12.2017 in regard to a selection for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Social Science conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, had found fault with the action of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Single Bench) in taking upon itself the issue of re-evaluation of the answers to the disputed questions in the written examination. Nevertheless, adopting a middle path and to give a quietus to the controversy, the Hon'ble Apex Court issued the following directions:

"37. As a result of our discussion and taking into consideration all the possibilities that might arise, we issue the following directions:

(1) The results prepared by the Board consequent upon the decision dated 2nd November, 2015 of the High Court should be declared by the Board within two weeks from today.

(2) Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be removed from service but should be allowed to continue.

(3) Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers will not be entitled to any consequential benefits."

Mr. Ajesh Luthra also drew our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar & others etc. v. State of Bihar & others etc. (Civil Appeal Nos.2525-2516/2013 with connected petitions) decided on 13.03.2013, in which the controversy involved was relating to re- evaluation of the answer sheets emanating from the selection process conducted by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The Hon'ble Apex Court had issued the following directions therein:-

"19. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that -

1) answer scripts of candidates appearing in 'A' series of competition examination held pursuant to advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 shall be got re-evaluated on the basis of a correct key prepared on the basis of the report of Dr. (Prof.) CN Sinha and Prof. KSP Singh and the observations made in the body of this order and a fresh merit list drawn up on that basis.

2) Candidates who figure in the merit list but have not been appointed shall be offered appointments in their favour. Such candidates would earn their seniority from the date the appellants were first appointed in accordance with their merit position but without any back wages or other benefit whatsoever.

3) In case writ petitioners-respondent nos. 6 to 18 also figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date when the appellants were first appointed with continuity of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any back wages or other incidental benefits.

4) Such of the appellants as do not make the grade after re- evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of advertisement No.1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to advertisement No.1906 of 2006.

5) Needful shall be done by the respondents - State and the Staff Selection Commission expeditiously but not later than three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them."

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. Luthra concluded his arguments by submitting that the applicant may be granted the relief claimed in terms of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court.

Per contra, Mrs. P K Gupta, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the impugned Annexure A-1 Result Notice has been issued in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vijeta Kundu (supra) and in the process the applicant has got excluded from the select list and as such the relief claimed cannot be considered.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings.

It is not in dispute that the applicant was selected to the post of Librarian (Post Code 69/10) as per the Result Notice dated 09.11.2017 and joined the said post under the Directorate of Education on 09.09.2016 (Annexure A-12). The impugned Result Notice has been published in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vijeta Kundu (supra). In fact, the case of Vijeta Kundu was adjudicated by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1131/2016, together with two other O.As., which was allowed and the DSSSB was directed to consider the computer diploma of the applicants therein as valid for the post of Librarian (Post Code 69/10). The order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No.6131/2017. It is also not in dispute that when the appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates for the post of Librarian (Post Code 69/10), the writ petition was still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. As such, the appointments of the selected candidates were subject to the outcome of Vijeta Kundu's case (supra). Hence, we do not find any fault in the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned Annexure A-1 Result Notice dated 09.11.2017, whereby the applicant has been excluded from the select list.

The applicant has fairly submitted that in case, for any technical reason, his candidature for the post of Librarian (Post Code 69/10) cannot be considered, in that case, he can be considered against the Post Code 02/13, for which he had also applied. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Rajesh Kumar (supra) have also showed indulgence in protecting the interest of the earlier selected candidates, who had already joined the service and subsequently, were excluded from the select list for some valid reasons. The applicant has also indicated that there are several posts of Librarian, which are still lying vacant. Hence, taking the ratio of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, we dispose of this O.A. in the following terms:-

(i) The DSSSB shall consider the candidature of the applicant for selection to the post of Librarian (Post Code 02/13) in case he is found to have secured marks more than the cut-off marks under OBC category. While doing so, the DSSSB should keep in view the age relaxation benefits of three years available to the applicant since he belongs to OBC category and another five years for he being a government departmental candidate.

(ii) The DSSSB, in consultation with the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, shall ascertain the availability of vacancies in the post of Librarian and if the vacancies under OBC category are available, then shall send a proper recommendation to the Directorate of Education for his appointment.

(iii) The directions at (i) & (ii) above shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.