Delhi Subordinate Services ... vs Vandana
2011 Latest Caselaw 2371 Del

$~35.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+       WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2893/2011

                                            Date of order: 3nd May, 2011

        DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
        & ANR.                              ..... Petitioners
                     Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate.

                         Versus

        VANDANA                                          ..... Respondent
                             Through Nemo.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

        CM No. 6152/2011


        Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just

exceptions.


        W.P (C) No. 2893/2011


        Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board has filed the

present petition to assail the order dated 2nd August, 2010

allowing O.A. No. 429/2010 filed by the respondent-Vandana.
W.P. (C) No. 2893/2011                                            Page 1 of 4
 2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as

per the selection procedure and the advertisement there was no

waiting list and no panel was prepared and, therefore, even if

three candidates were found to be ineligible, the vacancies

lapsed and the respondent has no right. It is submitted that the

three vacancies have been included in the list of future

vacancies.


3.      We have considered the contention of the petitioner and

examined the paper book.            We entirely agree with the

findings/reasoning given by the tribunal. In October, 2007, an

advertisement was published for thirty posts of Drawing

Teachers. Eleven posts were reserved for OBC category. The

respondent qualified in both the objective type and the main

examination and was shown at serial No. 128 in the merit list.

The respondent belongs to OBC category.


4.      The list of OBC candidates or the selection list is Annexure

P-4 to the writ petition. The said list gives the marks obtained by

the candidates out of 200. The last column has the heading

„remarks‟. In the „remarks it is stated whether the candidate is

eligible or not. It is noticeable that against several candidates in

W.P. (C) No. 2893/2011                                   Page 2 of 4
 the „remark column‟ it is mentioned "eligible" or "not eligible". If a

candidate has been selected in some other category, then the

same is also stated in the remarks column. However, against

three candidates, namely, Deepti Sachdeva, Renu Bariwal and

Archana Mourya under the „remark column‟ it is mentioned

"pending, done B.Com(P)" or "Pending-OBC certificate not

enclosed".        B.Com is not the requisite minimum qualification

and, therefore, Deepti Sachdeva was not eligible.           Similarly,

Renu Bariwal and Archana Mourya were not OBC candidates

and were, therefore, not eligible. It is clear from the aforesaid

that these three candidates were disqualified because they were

not eligible either because they did not have the requisite

minimum prescribed qualification or did not belong to the OBC

category. Their names could not have been included in the list

of the eleven successful candidates in the OBC category. Only

eligible candidates who had qualified could be included in the

selection list. The selection list was not drawn as per law.


5. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the

contention of the petitioners that the tribunal has directed

appointment from the waiting list. Tribunal has not held there

was a waiting list or candidates from the waiting list should be
W.P. (C) No. 2893/2011                                    Page 3 of 4
 appointed. In the present case, the aforesaid three candidates

should not have been included in the panel of selected

candidates and did not form part of the select/merit list. The

selection list or the merit list should have consisted of the top

eleven eligible candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioners

was asked whether the respondent would have qualified in case

the three candidates mentioned above were excluded from the

merit list.      She has answered in affirmative.   This being the

factual position, we do not find any merit in the present writ

petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.


                                           SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

MAY 03, 2011 VKR