Delhi High Court
Delhi Subordinate Services ... vs Shri Suraj Bhan on 3 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C)No. 2905/2011
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION & ORS. ....Petitioners
Through Ms. Zubeda Begum and Ms. Sana
Ansari, Advocates.
VERSUS
SHRI SURAJ BHAN .....Respondent
Through Mr. Sumit Chander and Mr. P
Pankaj, Advocates for R-2.
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 ?
ORDER
% 03.05.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Pursuant to requisition made by Directorate of Education,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, the petitioner, had
advertised for filling up 10 vacancies for the post of PGT. Two of
the vacancies were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC).
2. Suraj Bhan, the respondent applied and had disclosed his
status as OBC. As he was already a Government employee, he
was eligible for age relaxation. There is no dispute that the
respondent is OBC and is also entitled to age relaxation.
3. In part-1 examination the respondent had secured 120 out
of 200 marks and the last selected candidate in the OBC category
has secured 93 marks out of 200. In view of the performance of
the respondent in part-1 examination, he was issued admit card
for part-2 examination. However, his part-2 examination result
was not declared. The respondent obtained necessary
information under Right to Information Act and thereafter filed OA
No.283/2010 which has been allowed by the impugned order
dated 15th September, 2010.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent
was rightly not selected and disqualified as he had failed to
comply with direction at serial No.8 in respect of missing or
incorrect data in the admit card on the basis of which the
respondent appeared in part-2 examination. The said instruction
no.8 reads as under :
"............if any candidate appearing for the
examination finds that her/his name, reservation
category, post name, post code, photo, signature
missing or incorrect in his/her Admit Card, he/she
should get it rectified by visiting the office of the Board
on the dates, time and venue mentioned above. Any
modification in the admit card at the examination
centre will not be allowed............"
5. It is admitted that the respondent's name, reservation
category, post name, post code, photo and signature were not
missing or incorrect but in the admit card it was not mentioned
that the respondent was Government servant or GO. A similar
contention was also raised before the Tribunal and rightly rejected
by the impugned order dated 15th September, 2010. Instruction
no.8 mentioned above does not stipulate that the admit card
should mention that the candidate was entitled to age relaxation,
which was available to an existing departmental employee or
Government servant. The respondent could not have presumed
that the admit card should mention that he was eligible for age
relaxation being a government servant or a departmental
candidate. Disqualifying a candidate is a serious matter and has
adverse and harsh consequences on a candidate who suffers.
Clarity and preciseness was therefore required on the part of the
petitioner. The respondent could not have presumed that the
admit card should have indicated that he was a government
servant and therefore entitled to age relaxation. Besides we find
that the stand of the petitioners is hyper technical. It may be also
noticed that the admit card is prepared by the petitioner. The
lapse, if any, was on the part of the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
May 3, 2011
vld
