Parveen Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1515 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of Decision : April 03, 2013

+                          W.P.(C) 477/2012

       PARVEEN KUMAR                                          ..... Petitioner
               Represented by:          Mr.Pankaj Batra, Advocate with
                                        petitioner in person.

                                        versus

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.               ..... Respondents
                Represented by: Ms.Navratn Chaudhary, Advocate
                                with SI Sri Bhagwan.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. On February 20, 2009 the Commissioner of Police, Delhi got issued an advertisement inviting applications to fill up 6141 posts of Male Constables in Delhi indicating that 3101 posts were unreserved, 1658, 921 and 461 posts were reserved for OBC, SC and ST candidates respectively. It was further indicated that in each category 10% posts would be reserved for ex-servicemen.

2. As per Standing Order No.212/2008 merit list had to include names of candidates 20% over and above the number of vacancies notified, but select list prepared was of 6331 candidates.

3. 5811 candidates were appointed and the remaining vacant posts went a begging.

4. At this stage we find a calculation error in paragraph 2 of the

order passed by the Tribunal wherein number of vacancies unfilled have been noted as 220; a figure which is patently wrong. The reason being : 6141 - 5811 = 330.

5. Be that as it may, this factual error hardly matters, but is being noted lest there is a confusion with respect to the exact figure.

6. In the same year, the next recruitment process, which has been called by the Tribunal as 'Recruitment 2009 (Phase-2)' commenced and the unfilled vacancies got carry forwarded to the second phase.

7. After the second phase recruitment was completed and appointments made, the writ petitioner and many others filed Original Applications before the Tribunal pointing out that their names were included in the 6331 candidates shortlisted. They raised a grievance of 330 posts being vacant. They sought a direction of being appointed to the said posts.

8. Petitioner's Original Application was No.2008/2010.

9. Of the various contentions urged by the respondents, one was that once a selection process was completed and notwithstanding posts remaining vacant, if the next selection process commenced and was completed, the previous select list expires and a belated grievance pertaining to not being offered appointment cannot be entertained.

10. For record we may note that on facts the respondent pleaded that pertaining to Phase-2, advertisements were issued inviting applications to fill up 6032 vacancies on November 07, 2009.

11. The said defence projected by the respondents has been accepted by the Tribunal as per the impugned decision dated May 04, 2011, and we find that of the 11 applicants before the Tribunal, only one - the petitioner litigates further.

12. We concur with the view taken by the Tribunal which finds

support from, if not more, two decisions of the Supreme Court. The first is reported as (2007) 5 SCC 572 State of U.P. & Anr. v. Nidhi Khanna & Anr. Nidhi Khanna was at serial No.1 of the wait list and had an issue of one post of Lecturer in Geography, for which she had applied being vacant. By the time she raised the grievance the next phase selection process had commenced and another merit list prepared. The Supreme Court held that once the second stage recruitment commences, the earlier panels lapse notwithstanding vacancies available pertaining to the year of empanelment of the previous list being unfilled. The second is the decision reported as (2010) 6 SCALE 126 State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda wherein it was held that once a selection process was over and the select list had expired, vacancies carry forwarded to the next year, no relief could be granted at a belated stage.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

CM No.1000/2012 Since the writ petition stands disposed of, instant application seeking ad-interim stay of operation of the impugned order till disposal of the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE APRIL 03, 2013//dk//