Rana Jatav vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board And Anr.

S.N. Terdal, J

Heard Ms. Ms. Pallavi Awasthi for Dr. Vijender Mahandiya, counsel for applicant and Mr. Jagdish N. counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.

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

"a) A direction to the Respondent No.1 for considering the applicant's candidature for his selection to the post of Staff Nurse under post code 77/09.

b) A direction commanding the Respondent No.1 to treat the applicant as SC for grant of reservation benefits and further direct the respondent to issue joining letter to the applicant for joining his duty and to grant all consequential benefits.

c) A direction commanding the Respondent No.1 to pay the costs of this petition to the applicants.

d) Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

The relevant facts of the case are that applicant had applied for the post of Staff Nurse in response to the advertisement No. 4/2009 post code no.77/09 under Scheduled Caste category. In the written examination he had secured 79 marks out of 200 and that cut off marks for the Scheduled Caste category was 71 marks. However, he learnt that no appointment letter was issued to him because he is Scheduled Caste not of Delhi but of outside Delhi. He made several representations. He has approached the Tribunal on 27.02.2018. In so far as delay is concerned, the applicant has filed MA 1191/2018.

This MA has been filed by the applicant for seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA. We find that the matters pertain to selection for the advertisement of 2009 and the OA no.1063/2018 has been filed on 27.02.1018. He has not given day-to-day explanation for delay. He has simply relied upon similar OAs bearing no 1687/2011, 1124/2013 and 3304/2013 and 1530/2015. He has also relied upon reply to RTI application filed by some other persons.

The counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the process of appointment started with respect to the above said advertisement of 2009 has long been over. As such it is a stale case hit by delay and laches and on that ground they vehemently contend that application be dismissed on the ground of delay only.

The counsel for the applicant has brought to our notice the following portion of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 15.11.2017 in the case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors. (OA No. 3457/2015 and others OA) and para 8 which states as follows:

".... This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."

Though, it is true that similarly situated persons should be treated alike in service matters. But, however, if a person sleeps over his rights for several years and in the meantime entire appointment process is over and none of the post advertised in the said advertisement are no more available then we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to such applicant and granting relief would have several administrative complications for the respondents, particularly after several years of the closing of the entire process of recruitment.

In the circumstances, MA is dismissed. Accordingly, OA is dismissed.