Rohit Kumar & Others vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

By this common order, we dispose of four OAs (OA No.3406/2017, OA No. 3298/2017, OA No.2636/2018 & OA No.2235/2016), as common question of facts and law are involved.

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in short, DSSSB) issued an advertisement in the month of May, 2012, inviting applications for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Delhi Jal Board (DJB)(52) and Govt. of NCT of Delhi (NCTD)(1659) under the Post Codes 48/12 and 68/12, respectively. The applicants in these OAs responded to the advertisement.

A written test for the selection was held on 16.11.2014 and the result thereof was declared on 20.03.2015. The skill test for the selection of the candidates was conducted between 16.05.2015 to 24.05.2015. The result of the skill test was published on 14.12.2015 and the documents verification was undertaken on 29.12.2015. Thereafter, the final list of the selected candidates was published on 11.05.2016.

The applicants contend that the user department addressed a letter dated 07.06.2017, stating that 173 selected candidates did not join and made a request to the DSSSB for sending equal number of dossiers of the candidates of the respective categories and that the DSSSB did not comply with the same.

In this background, they filed these OAs with a prayer to direct the respondents to declare the action of the DSSSB, in not sending the dossiers of candidates to the user department, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to take necessary steps to issue orders of appointment against the unfilled vacancies. According to the applicants, there are 474 unfilled vacancies.

The Respondents filed the counter affidavits in respective cases. It is stated that the final results were declared on 11.05.2016 and though a reserved list was prepared for 10% of vacancies, it lapsed on expiry of one year. It is further mentioned that any requisition received after the lapse of reserved panel, cannot be acted upon. In some cases, joint affidavit filed by the user department as well as the DSSSB stating that the unfilled vacancies are available to be filled at this stage.

We heard Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, counsel for the applicants and Ms.Esha Mazumdar, Shri Ujjwal Kumar Jha, Shri AmitYadav and Ms.SangitaRai, counsel for the respondents.

The selection process for the post of LDC in DJB and GNCTD commenced with the issuance of advertisement in the year 2012. The examination was conducted between 16.05.2015 and 24.05.2015, and the ultimate selection emerged by 11.05.2016. The applicants did not figured in the list of selected candidates. They do not even mention that their names figure in the reserve list, maintained by the DSSSB. The applicants could have got a right of being considered, if only;

(a) their names figures in the reserved lists; and

(b) the user department notified the resultant vacancies before the lapse of the reserved list.

In none of these four OAs, the particulars in this behalf are furnished. Assuming that the names of some or all the applicants figured in the reserve lists, the fact remains that the request from the user department emanated only on 07.06.2017, i.e., beyond one year from the date on which the results were declared.

Added to that, the pleadings in these OAs disclose that the DSSSB could not take further steps on the basis of the situation obtaining on 07.06.2017 on account of the fact that there were already excess appointments in various categories and no vacancies existed. The Tribunal cannot disbelieve the statement made by the responsible organisation on oath. The process which commenced about 11 years ago cannot be continued particularly when the selections are made or required to take place year after year.

We do not find any merit in the OAs and accordingly dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

All ancillary applications shall stand disposed of.