Tahir Hussain vs Regional Executive Director, ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4515 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) No. 2247/2010 & CM No. 4539/2010 (Stay)

%                                                    30th September, 2013

TAHIR HUSSAIN                                             ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. D.K.Singh, Adv.


                          VERSUS

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA                                    ...... Respondents
                Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    By this writ petition, petitioner seeks the relief of being appointed to

the post of Junior Assistant (Office) with the respondent. The relief clause

itself states that petitioner be appointed only as per his ranking and merit.

2.    Petitioner appeared in the selection process for the post by appearing

in the written test held on 28.10.2007 and in the typing test which was held

on 16.3.2008. Interview was thereafter conducted of the petitioner on

15.7.2008. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to be appointed, however, it



WPC 2247/2010                                                                   Page 1 of 3
 is not disputed that petitioner's claim would be valid only if the petitioner

had the necessary ranking in the merit list/select list.


3.    Counter-affidavit filed by the respondent shows that petitioner applied

in the General Category where he was placed at serial no.98 in the select list,

and appointments in the general category is only up to serial no. 67.

Petitioner is therefore far below the cut-off candidates' marks and serial

number, and therefore cannot be appointed.


4.    In the writ petition, it was stated that persons who have got much

lesser marks than the petitioner had been appointed, however, respondent in

its affidavit has clarified that such persons who have got less marks than the

petitioners were in the reserved category of SC or ST or OBC or PH etc.


5.    I may note that 50% of the vacancies in the present case were reserved

in terms of the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this

Court in W.P.(C) No. 18661-65/2004.


6.    In view of the above, since the selection can only be on the

petitioner's achieving a particular position in the merit list, and which

position petitioner has not obtained because in the General Category list

selection was only up to the candidate having serial no. 67, and since


WPC 2247/2010                                                               Page 2 of 3
 petitioner is at serial no.98, no relief as claimed in the writ petition can be

granted to the petitioner.


7.    In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties

to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 30, 2013                            VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib