Varsha Mahavra vs Delhi Subordinate Services ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 1248 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 7903/2008

%                  Date of Decision: 05th March ,2010


#     VARSHA MAHAVRA
                                                             .....PETITIONER

!                  Through:   Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms Aditi Gupta,
                              Advocates.

                                    VERSUS

$     DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS.
                                               .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate.

CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Delhi Subordinate Services

Selection Board (respondent No. 1 herein) in the Employment News of

13-19/01/2007 for inviting applications for filling up of various posts of

Teachers, the petitioner had applied for her appointment to the post of

TGT, Punjabi (Female) against Post Code No. 117/2006. She had qualified

the preliminary examination but the result of her main examination was

withheld by respondent No. 1. The petitioner later on came to know

through information under RTI Act that she had also qualified the main

examination but was denied appointment as she did not fulfill the

eligibility criteria on the cut-off date of 02.02.2007 mentioned in the

advertisement pursuant to which she had applied. Aggrieved therefrom,

the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ

of certiorari quashing the cut-off date of 02.02.2007 fixed by the

respondents for determining the eligibility for the post of TGT, Punjabi

(Female) vide its advertisement in the Employment News dated

13-19/01/2007 (Advertisement No.06/2006) as arbitrary and

discriminatory. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the

respondents to consider her for appointment to the post of TGT, Punjabi

(Female).

2 I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties

and have also perused the record.

3 In the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied

for her appointment to the post of TGT, Punjabi (Female), the cut off date

of 02.02.2007 was specifically mentioned as the date on which the

candidates applying for various posts should meet the eligibility criteria

mentioned in the said advertisement. The last date of receipt of

applications from eligible persons mentioned in the advertisement was

02.02.2007. It was specifically provided in the advertisement that the

educational qualification, age, experience and other conditions of

eligibility as stipulated in the advertisement shall be determined as on

the closing date of applications i.e. 02.02.2007.

4 As per the advertisement, one of the essential qualifications

required by a candidate for appointment to the post of TGT, Punjabi

(Female) was a degree or diploma in Education. Admittedly, the

petitioner did not possess the said degree of B. Ed. or diploma in

Education on the cut-off date of 02.02.2007. She is stated to has passed

the B. Ed. course through distant education from University of Jammu on

15.03.2007. There is no dispute about this fact.

5 Mr. Naresh Kaushik learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has contended that since the petitioner was allowed to sit in

the preliminary as well as in the main examination held for the post, it

should be deemed that the respondent had treated the petitioner as

eligible for her appointment to the post she had applied for. He has

further argued that since the petitioner possess the requisite qualification

required for her appointment to the post of TGT, Punjabi (Female) and as

the vacancies are also available, the Court should direct the respondents

to appoint her to the post for which she has qualified the preliminary as

well as the main examination.

6 I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments

advanced on behalf of the petitioner but I am sorry I could not persuade

myself to agree with the same in view of judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Anurag Srivastava & Ors.

JT 1998 (9) SC 190 ; Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2000

SC 2011; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Misra AIR 2003 SC

4411; Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. UOI & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 54.

7 It will be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ashok Kumar Sonkar's case (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that in order to avoid any uncertainty for determining the

eligibility conditions, fixation of a cut off date is a must. It is further held

in the said judgment that in the absence of any cut off date specified in

the advertisement or in the Rules, the last date for filing the application

should be considered as a cut off date.

8 In the present case the cut off date for determining the eligibility of

the candidates for the post of TGT, Punjabi (Female) was specifically

mentioned in the impugned advertisement as the last date of receipt of

applications from eligible candidates, which was 02.02.2007. Since the

petitioner did not possess the essential qualification of B. Ed. prescribed

in the advertisement for her appointment to the post of TGT, Punjabi

(Female) on the said cut off date, she was rightly not considered for her

appointment to the post in question. Acquiring of essential qualifications

by her on a subsequent date after the cut off date is of no consequence.

I am of the view that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the

cut off date for determining the eligibility mentioned in the impugned

advertisement was arbitrary particularly in view of a specific clause

contained in the advertisement in question regarding cancellation of

candidature which is extracted below:-

"The candidates applying for the posts should ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions. Merely because a candidate has been allowed to appear at the examination will not be considered as a valid ground for his/her being eligible for the selection. If on verification at any time before or after the written examination or at any stage of selection process, it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, his/her candidature for the post applied for, will be cancelled by the Board/Appointing Authority."

9 The petitioner had sufficient notice of the clauses contained in the

advertisement pursuant to which she had applied for her appointment to

the post of TGT, Punjabi (Female) that her candidature was likely to be

cancelled as she did not possess the requisite essential qualification of

degree in education which she admittedly acquired after the cut-off date

of 02.02.2007 and therefore, she cannot make any grievance regarding

fixing of cut off date of 02.02.2007 in the advertisement by respondent

No. 1.

10 Mr. Naresh Kaushik learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has argued that the respondents have power to relax the rules

depending on facts of a particular case. He submits that in the facts of

the present case, the respondents should have relaxed the eligibility

conditions for the petitioner and should have offered appointment to her

as she has qualified the preliminary as well as the main examination. I do

not find any substance in this argument urged by the petitioner's

counsel. In case this argument of the petitioner is accepted, then it will

amount to denial of opportunity to those who might have become eligible

like the petitioner during the period intervening between the cut-off date

and the date on which the petitioner acquired the essential qualification

of B.Ed. Degree on 15.03.2007. The acceptance of this argument of the

petitioner's counsel will be in complete violation of provisions contained

in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and this cannot be allowed

to happen.

11 In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed but with no orders as to costs.

MARCH 05, 2010                                        S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'A'