Amit Singhal & Ors. vs The Chairman, Dsssb & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2789 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P. (C.) No.3603/2010

%                        Date of Decision: 26.05.2010

Amit Singhal & Ors.                                        .... Petitioners
                        Through Mr.Pawan Bahl, Advocate

                                  Versus

The Chairman, DSSSB & Anr.                      .... Respondent
                  Through Ms. Zubeida Begum, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioners, who are working as a contractual staff nurses in

Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara and Institute of Human

Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Shahdara, have challenged the order

dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench in OA 1101/2010 titled Sh. Amit Singhal & Ors. Vs.

Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr.,

dismissing their petition seeking direction to the respondents not to

hold common examinations on 10th April, 2010 and 11th April, 2010

against all the five posts and to postpone the examinations and

direction to the respondent to hold separate examination for the

separate post code and to provide opportunity to the petitioners to

appear in two examinations as some of them had applied for two posts.

Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the

advertisements were given in 2008 for appointment of staff nurses in

Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences and in the Institute of

Human Behavior and Allied Sciences. The advertisements were also

issued for filling the vacancies by Delhi Jal Board and Health and

Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in 2009. Consequently, different

advertisements were given in different years for the posts of staff nurses

having different code numbers.

According to the petitioners, who are staff nurses on contractual

basis, they are eligible for these posts which have been advertised and

therefore, they filled in the application forms separately for different

vacancies and also deposited required documents along with necessary

charges. The averment of the petitioners is that there are five hundred

such other cases in which the candidates have applied for more than

one post and since advertisements were different for different posts they

expected that the examination shall be separate for different posts.

The respondents by a notification dated 26th February, 2010,

however, informed that the examination for all posts having five codes

shall be common and shall be held on 10th April, 2010 at 10:30 AM for

those candidates whose names are from alphabets A to O and the

common examination shall be conducted for remaining candidates

having their names from other than alphabet A to O on 11th April, 2010.

The petitioners contended that petitioner No. 1 received the admit

card for appearing in the examination on 10th April, 2010 and also

received another admit card for the examination on the same date and

time for selection to another post with a different code.

The petitioners also contended that in some of the cases, a

candidate for the reserved category such as OBC category has received

the admit card for general category candidates and vice versa. The

grievance was also made regarding rejection of the candidature of Sh.

Vijay Kumar Joshi on the ground that he was over age, though, a

candidate is entitled for age relaxation and if age relaxation is given to

Vijay Kumar Joshi, he would be eligible to appear in the examination.

Aggrieved by the notification dated 26th February, 2010, notifying a

common examination for all the posts for which different applications

were invited, a representation dated 29th march, 2010 was made by the

petitioners to cancel or postpone the examination and to hold separate

examinations against separate vacancies in respect of five different

posts for which applications were invited under different

advertisements. The petitioners contended that since they had applied

separately for different posts. Therefore, a common examination could

not be conducted for all the posts specially when the advertisements

No. post code no., examination code Nos. and the departments, where

the candidates are to be employed are different and even the year of

advertisements are different though all the posts are in different

departments of Government of NCT.

The pleas and contentions of the petitioners were contested by

the respondent contending that the original application was filed

belatedly because the notification for common examination for different

posts in different departments was published on 20-26th February,

2010, however, the petitioners approached the Tribunal just before the

examination slated from 10th April, 2010. The respondents asserted

that keeping in view the large number of candidates, the respondents

decided to hold a common examination. The common examination

according to the respondents is for employment as staff nurses in

different departments which are as under:-

S.No. Name of Post Department         Post       Advt. No.    Vacancy

                                      Code                    Advt.


01        Staff Nurse   MAIDS         09/08      01/2008      16


02        Nursing       MAIDS         26/08      02/2008      02

          Sister


03        Staff Nurse   IHBAS         04/09      01/2009      101




 04        Staff Nurse      Delhi Jal      75/09       04/2009      4

          Gr.B             Board


05        Staff Nurse      H & FWD        77/09       04/2009      1862

According to the respondents, the petitioners are liable to appear

in the common examination and on the date of examination they are

required to exercise their preferences for the post. It was also contended

that as per instruction No. 3, in case the candidate has been issued

more than one admit card on account of a candidate applying for more

than one posts, since the examination is one, the candidate is entitled

to appear at any of the Centers stipulated in any of the admit cards.

The relevant instructions issued by the respondents is as under:-

"5. If a candidate receives more than one admit card for same post code, he/she should contact the office of the Board and get a single admit card issued. No later request after the above mentioned dates will be entertained. Therefore, the candidates are advised to come to the office of the Board on the above dates and time only for issue of duplicate admit cards."

The respondents also gave the reasons for issuing more than one

admit cards which have been detailed by them in their counter affidavit

which is as under:-

Petitioner No.01, Sh.Amit Singhal:-

Petitioner was issued two admit cards as while generating data his name was not correctly feeded, which is apparent from the perusal of his admit card of

post code 77/09 as his surname Singhal is written as Singh al, which resulted in issuance of more than one admit card. Copies of the application form and admit cards are annexed herewith as Annexure R-3.

Petitioner No.02. Ms.Nengneilhing Singsit:-

Petitioner was issued two admit cards as while generating data her name was not correctly feeded, which is apparent from the perusal of her admit cards of post code 04/09 her name is written as Nengneilhing Singsit. Further in both the admit cards in column for name of husband/father, in one is her husband name and in the other it is her father's name which resulted in issuance of more than one admit card. Copies of the application form and admit cards are annexed herewith as Annexure R-4.

Petitioner No.03. Ms.Lhingnelan Haokip:-

Petitioner was issued two admit cards as while generating data her name was not correctly feeded, which is apparent from the perusal of her admit cards of post code 04/09 as name is written as Ms.Lhi gnelan Haokip, which resulted in issuance of more than one admit card. Copies of the application form and admit cards are annexed herewith as Annexure R-4.

Petitioner No.04. Sh.Vijender Kumar:-

Petitioner had already been issued admit card bearing Roll No.004152772 for Post code 04/09 and 77/09. A copy of the application form and admit card is annexed herewith as Annexure R-6.

Petitioner No.05. Sh.Om Prakash Jakha:-

Petitioner had already been issued admit card bearing Roll No.00412688 for Post code 04/09 and 77/09. A copy of the application form and admit card is annexed herewith as Annexure R-7.

Petitioner No.06. Sh.Chetan Kumar Soni:-

Petitioner had already been issued admit card bearing Roll No.00411499 for Post code 04/09 and 77/09. A copy of the application form and admit card is annexed herewith as Annexure R-8.

Petitioner No.07. Sh.kailash Chand Yadav:-

Petitioner had already been issued admit card bearing Roll No.00411144 for Post code 04/09 and 77/09. A copy of the application form and admit card is annexed herewith as Annexure R-9.

The respondents also gave explanations for issuance of three

admit cards to Ms. Ruchi Sehgal who is, however, not a petitioner

before this Court and who was not a party before the Tribunal also. It

was also deposed that Ms. Ruchi Sehgal has visited the respondents on

8th April, 2010 and a common admit card has been issued to her.

The respondents also justified the common examination on the

ground that for fewer vacancies the chances for the candidates to get

selected will be less compared to more vacancies, and therefore, the

petitioners should not have a grievance for having a common

examination for different posts advertised in different notices.

Regarding the alleged age relaxation to be given, it was pleaded

that no age relaxation is contemplated for those candidates who are

working on contractual basis under Govt. of National Capital Territory

of Delhi.

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, had directed the

respondents not to hold the examination for the post of staff nurses, on

10th April, 2010 and 11th April, 2010 as the time was short and the

Tribunal was of the view that two different sets of paper could not have

been prepared for the post of staff nurses on two different dates for

preparing a common merit list as the common examination for selection

was to be held on two days on 10th April, 2010 and 11th April, 2010.

Later on, the respondents issued a fresh advertisement on 20th

April, 2010 for holding the examination for the post of staff nurses on

13th May, 2010 in one session only. The Tribunal, thus, held that

anomaly of preparing a common merit list on the basis of two

examination conducted on two different dates from different candidates

having different names was sorted out.

The Tribunal, however, rejected the plea of the petitioners that

they are entitled to have different examination for selection for different

posts notified by different advertisements in different newspapers. The

Tribunal held that the respondents decided to hold a common

examination by asking preferences of the petitioners of their choices of

hospital and departments and it would be sufficient protection to the

candidates because ultimately, the candidates cannot take two

appointments even if they are selected for two posts and in the

circumstances, asking the petitioners at the time of examination to give

their preferences could not be termed as illegal. It was also noticed that

the posts would be allotted as per the preference given by the

candidates and as per their merit and consequently, dismissed the

petition which order is challenged by the petitioners in the present writ

petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently

contended that the posts for which different advertisements were given

are different inasmuch as they carry different emoluments and were

advertised by different advertisements. The learned counsel has also

contended that having a common examination will be prejudicial to the

interest of the petitioners.

This has not been disputed and cannot be disputed by the

petitioners that the posts in different departments advertised by

different advertisements are for staff nurses. This is also not disputed

that the eligibility for the post of staff nurses/nursing sister is same in

different departments though as has been alleged by the petitioner, in

some of the cases, emoluments payable may be different. However, the

eligibility criteria for selection to posts of staff nurses in different

hospitals and departments under the Government of NCT are same.

This also cannot be disputed by the petitioners that in case, more

than one examination is conducted for different posts, all the

candidates who are eligible would be entitled to appear in different

examinations. In case, the candidates appear in the same examination,

it cannot be inferred that their chance for selection will diminish or they

will be prejudiced in any manner. In any case, the learned counsel for

the petitioner has failed to show that the petitioners have an

indefeasible right to appear in different examination. How the

candidates would be prejudiced in case they appear in common

examination in place of different examination for same type of posts i.e.

staff nurses in different departments/hospital under the Government of

NCT of Delhi has not been explained satisfactorily by the petitioners'.

Hypothetically, if an examination is conducted for one post in one

department and other departments want to follow the merit of the

candidates in that examination and adopt the same, the petitioners

cannot have a grievance about it. The only requirement can be that the

petitioners have to be intimated in advance that there would be only

one examination for a particular post in a particular department and all

other departments shall follow the merit based on the examination

conducted for a particular post in a particular department. If that be

so, a fortiori, the respondents can conduct a common examination for

all the posts and select and allot the post according to the merit to the

candidate in the common examination according to the preferences of

the candidates.

Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly

emphasized that the post were advertised by different departments,

however, that does not give any such right to the petitioners that there

should be separate examination for each post advertised separately. The

examination body is the same and criteria for selection for post of staff

nurses, though in different departments, is the same. In the

circumstances, the petitioners cannot contend that different

examinations should be conducted for selection to the posts of staff

nurses in different departments of Government of NCT. The petitioners

do not have such a right as has been claimed by them nor they have

been able to show satisfactorily that they will be prejudices in any

manner, if common selection examination is conducted for selection to

the posts of staff nurses in different departments and bodies under the

Government of NCT.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances, therefore, the

petitioners have failed to make out a case that they are entitled to have

separate examination for the posts of staff nurses on the ground that

those posts are in different department of the Government of NCT and

that the selection cannot be made on the basis of a common

examination. The nomenclature of the posts is same with similar

eligibility condition and these posts are in different departments of

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the petitioners are working as contractual

staff nurses. In the circumstances, the petitioners do not have any such

rights as has been claimed by them and consequently they are also not

entitled for any relief as they have failed to make out any ground

showing any illegality or irregularity or perversity in the order of

Tribunal dismissing their original application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out

any prejudice, which will be caused to the petitioner in case of a

common examination instead of different examinations on different

dates. In the ultimate analyze therefore, this Court does not find any

such illegality or irregularity or such perversity in the order of the

Tribunal impugned before us, which will require any correction or

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances, is without any

merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. All the applications are also

disposed of. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

May 26, 2010                                      MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'