AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board(DSSSB) initiated the process for selection to various posts in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in
the year 2009. One such post was Primary Teacher(Urdu). The selection process was a bit delayed and the results were declared only on 01.03.2014.
The list of selected candidates was also published and simultaneously a wait list was also published and it was supposed to be in force for a period of
one year i.e. up to 28.02.2015. The DSSSB published the four supplementary result notices between 08.05.2014 and 10.06.2016.
The applicant contends that out of the wait listed candidates, one candidate-Abu Bakar, did not join and thereby his e-dossier was returned by the
user department and being the next candidate in the merit list, she was entitled to be considered. Earlier she filed OA No.2243/2019. That was
disposed of on 05.08.2019 directing the respondents to examine the case of the applicant, and examine the issue as to whether the wait list is still alive
and it is possible to consider the case of the applicant if there existed vacancy. A clause was also addedto the effect that the consideration shall be
only in case there is none before the applicant in the waiting list. On a consideration of the same, the respondents passed an order dated 17.01.2020. It
was mentioned that for the UR candidates there exists a wait list of eight candidates and the entire wait list was exhausted by 29.06.2016. It is also
stated that the left over vacancies have already been surrendered to the department vide letter dated 08.06.2008. The respondents further stated that
the applicant was not included in the wait list at all and that said list has lapsed. It is also mentioned that the applicant secured less marks than the last
candidate included in the wait list.
This OA is filed challenging the order dated 17.01.2020. The applicant contends that as recently as on 29.09.2020, the East Delhi Municipal
Corporation, the user department has replied stating that the e-dossier of Mr. Abu Bakkar was returned vide letter dated 14.03.2017 to the nodal
Corporation. She contends that the respondents ought to have considered her case against the available vacancy.
We heard Mr.G.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Ms.Sriparna
Chatterjee, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.R.K. Jain with Ms.Sangita Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
This is the second round of litigation initiated by the applicant, in her attempt to get appointed as an Urdu Teacher. The selection process
commenced way back in the year 2009. However, the list of selected candidates was published only on 01.03.2014. Along with the list of selected
candidates, the respondents have also published the wait list for 10% of the vacancies. According to the norms stipulated by the DSSSB, the life of
wait list is one year from the date of declaration of the results. In the normal course, the life of the wait list in the instant case is up to 28.02.2015.
Fairly enough the respondents issued a supplementary result notice on 10.06.2016. Assuming that the life of the wait list stands extended for one year
from the date of last of the panel it would be upto 09.06.2014. In the impugned order, the respondents have categorically stated that all the candidates
in the wait list were selected and their dossiers were forwarded by 29.06.2016.Thereby the operation of the wait list becomes complete.
It is not in dispute that the applicant did not figure in the wait list at all. Law does not recognize a supplementary wait list or a wait list in the second
tier. The question of expanding the scope of wait list does not arise. At any rate, the curtain was drawn by 08.06.2018, and all the remaining vacancies
were surrendered to the concerned departments. Nothing can be done at this state. It must be said to the credit of the officer who passed the
impugned order that he dealt with the matter dispassionately and every development and the orders are referred to, in a systematic manner.
We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed.