Chitra Singh vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board And Ors

S.N. Terdal, J

We have heard Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, counsel for applicant and Mr. H.A.Khan, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all documents produced by both the parties.

In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

" i. To quash order dated 30.11.2012 passed by Respondent No.3 & direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Document) in accordance with rules & eligibility OR

ii. Such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may also be passed."

This is third round of litigation. The relevant facts of the case are that in response to the examination conducted by the respondent-DSSSB for the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Document) with post code no. 044/09 in the department of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), the applicant participated in the said examination and secured 114 marks out of 200 marks. The said recruitment was for three vacancies and only two candidates were selected and subsequently out of the said two candidates selected one did not join, as such as on the date of hearing of this OA only one vacancy was filled up and two vacancies are still not filled up. In the first round of litigation the applicant along with some other candidates filed OA 2927/2009 titled as Sanjeev Dwivedi & Ors Vs. DSSSB & Others, which was later on withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to file afresh OA. In the reply filed in the said OA, it was stated that the applicant had secured 114 marks out of 200 marks and the last candidate recommended had also secured 114 out of 200 marks but, however as the said last recommended candidate was elder in age and the applicant being younger in age her name was not recommended. The applicant had filed another OA 3212/2010 seeking direction to respondent No.1-DSSSB to send the dossiers of the applicant to respondent no. 2 and 3 to take a view regarding the eligibility of the applicant. As per the Recruitment Rules (RRs), two years experience of Analytical Methods/Research in the relevant field is required. The relevant portion of the said RRs is extracted below:

"Essential: (1) xxx xxx

(II) 2 years experience of analytical methods/ research therein in the relevant field."

As on the closing date of the receipt of the application i.e. as on 03.03.2009, the applicant admittedly had experience of one year and 11 months in the respondent-FSL, Govt. of NCT of Delhi itself and she had three (3) months experience in M/s Scope Enterprises, 17/592, Joshi  Road,  Karol  Bagh,  New  Delhi,  but  the  said period  of  three  months experience in the said Scope Enterprises was not treated as experience in the relevant field. The case of the applicant is that in the said Scope Enterprises, she had worked as Technical Executive in Analytical Cell, which is evident from the certificate issued by the said Scope Enterprises on 20.04.2007. The relevant portion of the said certificate is extracted below:-

"TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that Ms.Chitra Dadwal D/o Sh.Subhash Chand Dadwal Resident of V&PO- Riri, The-Jaswan, Distt.-Kangra, HP had worked with us for a period of three (03) months from 20th Dec. 2006 to 20th March 2007 with monthly emoluments of Rs.2500/- on the post of Trainee Technical Executive-Analytical Cell.

During her probation we found she has good analytical skill & ability. We wish her all the best for her future."

The further case of the applicant is that during the said period the respondent-FSL was corresponding with the said Scope Enterprises for several of their equipment and misc. items and that even World Health Organization (WHO) was purchasing several items from the said Scope Enterprises as per Annexures A-45 to A-47 collectively. This Tribunal in the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in OA 3212/2010 considered several documents referred to above and the submissions made by the respondents and recorded that the respondents are not acting in good faith and are not exercising their discretion in a reasonable and objective manner and that the respondents are taking a very rigid and hyper technical and arbitrary stand. The relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the said order is extracted below:-

"...........The learned counsel would take strong objection to the DSSSB's plea regarding the applicant being found deficient in requisite experience. It would be stated that such a ground had never been raised by the respondents either in their counter affidavit in the earlier OA 2927/2009 or even in the present OA and the subsequent additional affidavits till the last one filed on 17.11.2011. The shift in the stand of the DSSSB would be contended to be raising doubts about their good faith. Besides, provision of piecemeal information would be stated to be impeding the smooth and speedy dispensation of justice.

Considering the fact that the applicant in fact had an on the job experience in FSL itself, the stand of the respondents would also be dubbed as hyper technical and arbitrary. The rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant on 20.1.2012 asserts about the applicant possessing the requisite experience in the relevant field as on the date of application. This includes three months' experience in the Scope Enterprises and 1 year and 11 months in the FSL itself. The DSSSB's stand about the experience in the former not being in the relevant field has also been rebutted with some factual submissions....."

After recording the hyper technical and unreasonable stand taken by the respondents, ultimately the Tribunal by the said order dated 13.03.2012 directed respondent no. 1 to send dossier of the applicant to respondents no. 2 and 3 with a further direction to the said respondents to take a view regarding eligibility of the applicant in view of the averments made by the applicant in the OA. The relevant portion of the direction is extracted below:

"10. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the applicant has been able to make a case for reconsideration of the matter. The OA is accordingly disposed with the following directions:-

(i) The respondent No.1 will send the dossier of the applicant to the respondents no. 2 and 3; who will take a view as regards the eligibility of the applicant with regard to fulfillment of requisite experience. While doing so, the averments made in this regard on behalf of the applicant in this OA would also be duly considered. The time limit for the former would be one month, and for the latter, two months thereafter.

(ii) In the event of a positive outcome, the applicant will be offered appointment to the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Document). This, however, will be with prospective effect.

(iii) In the event of any hurdle in the aforesaid course of action, the respondents would pass a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the same to the applicant.

The aforesaid directions would be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

The respondents in compliance with the direction of this Tribunal dated 13.03.2012 extracted above, appointed a Committee and on the basis of the report of the said Committee, the respondents by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the said experience of three months in the said Scope Enterprises is not acceptable and hence the applicant though fulfills 1 year and 11 months acceptable experience in the relevant field but she is short of one month of essential experience and her candidature was rejected.

At the time of hearing, the counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is still working in the respondent-FSL and in view of the experience in the relevant field narrated above, the counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is otherwise well qualified and secured the marks equivalent to another candidate who was recommended for selection. As such the said two years experience requires may be relaxed in view of Note-1 of the RRs, which is extracted below:-

"Essential: (1) xx xx

(II) 2 years experience of analytical methods/ research therein in the relevant field."

Note-1: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the DSSSB for reasons to be recorded in writing in case of candidates otherwise well qualified."

(Emphasis supplied)

The respondents should have relaxed but as they have not exercised their discretion in right prospective exercising their power reasonably he submitted that this Tribunal may relax the said qualification of two years. The respondents have not disputed that during the period 2006, they were not purchasing various instruments and other items from the said Scope Enterprises and they have not disputed that even WHO was purchasing several items from the said Scope Organization. In view of these admitted documents and in view of the three months experience the applicant had while working with the said M/s Scope Enterprises and the respondent-FSL itself for 1 year 11 months before cut-off date and in view of the fact that out of 3 vacancies only one vacancy was filled and two vacancies are still existing and in view of note 1 of the said RRs extracted above, and in view of the fact that the applicant is still working with the respondent-FSL, the qualification requires to be relaxed. Though in the usual course we were required to and would have remanded the matter back with a direction to the respondents to relax the said qualification of 2 years experience, but in view of the peculiar facts of this case narrated above and in view of rigid view having been taken by the respondents since 2012, we hereby relax the qualification of two years in the relevant field and set aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 and hold the applicant as having the requisite qualification of experience in the relevant field and direct the respondents to appoint the applicant for the said post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Document) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs.