Delhi High Court
Delhi Subordinate Services ... vs Sanjeev Kumar on 2 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 02.09.2014
+ W.P.(C) 5706/2014, CAV. 744/2014, C.M. NOS.14087/2014
& 14088/2014
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing
Counsel (Civil)
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Shailesh Suman, Sh. Abhishek
Kumar Rao and Ms. Bhavya Bharti,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
CAV.744/2014
Learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance.
Cav. 744/2014 accordingly stands discharged.
C.M. No. 14088/2014 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5706/2014 Page 1
W.P.(C) 5706/2014, C.M. No. 14087/2014
1. The petitioner, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
(DSSSB) is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT) dated 13.01.2014 in O.A. No.4380/2012 whereby the
respondent's application was allowed, with a direction that in the
event of an unreserved candidate failing to join the post, he ought to
be considered for the post of PGT (Political Science).
2. The brief facts are that the respondent applicant had applied for
the post of PGT (Political Science) pursuant to an advertisement
issued in 2010. 20 vacancies were advertised out of which 11 were in
the unreserved category. A competitive written test was held on
18.12.2011; result of this test was declared on 17.07.2012. In the
combined select list, the respondent's name was at S. No.15; he had
secured 119 marks. The respondent applicant was not appointed. He,
therefore, approached the CAT with two contentions, i.e. that the
marks awarded to him in the written test were wrong and that he was
excluded from the select list even though another candidate - Baksha
Ram, who also obtained the same marks, was included. The DSSSB's
explanation was that Baksha Ram was senior to the respondent and
under the prevailing regulations, his candidature had to be accepted
since there was a tie in the performance. The CAT noticed in its
impugned order and relied upon two decisions of the Allahabad High
Court and directed that since the petitioner had secured same marks as
the last selected candidate, in the event a candidate refuses to join in
the unreserved category, instead of leaving the vacancy unfilled, the
petitioner should be offered appointment.
W.P.(C) 5706/2014 Page 2
3. The relevant findings of the CAT are as follows:
"5. It is not in dispute that last candidate selected in UR
category secured 119 marks in part II of the exam and could not
be included in the select list. The applicant could not find place
in the select list as there was no vacancy. It is also not in dispute
that because the vacancies in the unreserved category were only
10, thus though, both the applicant and Shri Baksha Ram (Roll
No.029795) got same marks, Shri Baksha Ram being elder to
him, was preferred over the applicant.
6. As has been viewed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Allahabad in the Trilok Nath Mishra Vs. State of UP (supra),
there is no object sought to be achieved by giving up preparation
of waiting list. If the waiting list is not prepared, the vacancies
will remain unfilled for a long period. Para 18 of the judgment
reads as under:
"There is no object sought to be achieved by
giving up preparation of waiting list. The vacancies
will remain unfilled for long period, whereas
deserving candidates will be kept waiting or take up
other jobs. The U.P. Public Service Commission
shall have to bear avoidable cost of selections for
the same vacancies afresh. The candidates will
either become overage or will have to again
compete for the same vacancies. It is thus, in the
interest and benefit of candidates, as well as in the
public interest to prepare a waiting list."
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
8. In view of the aforementioned judgments of Allahabad
High Court, the respondents could have prepared a waiting list
and had they done so, the applicant could be offered the vacancy
in UR category in the event of non-joining of any of the selected
candidates in the said category. It is separate issue that the wait
listed candidates have no right to appointment but such
W.P.(C) 5706/2014 Page 3
proposition would arise only when it is decided not to fill up the
vacancies.
9. In the present case, such situation is not espoused.
Nevertheless, none of the parties is clear regarding the category
in which the selected candidates have refused to join i.e. whether
UR category or reserved category.
10. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court and also the fact that marks scored by the applicant are
119 i.e. the same as scored by the last selected candidate in UR
category, we are of the opinion that in the event the candidate
refused to join is from UR category and the said vacancy is still
unfilled, the respondents would consider appointing the applicant
as PGT (Political Science) within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this letter."
4. It was argued on behalf of the DSSSB that the prevailing
instructions did not mandate maintenance of panel after declaration of
results. Once the select list was drawn in respect of 11 successful
candidates, there was no question of the employer proceeding on the
basis of an assumed waiting list and offering appointment to the
candidate who was next in order of merit.
5. This Court has considered the submissions. As is evident, the
CAT was guided by the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in
holding that if vacancies are allowed to remain for long period,
deserving candidates would be kept waiting. Although in the present
case, the DSSSB asserts that no waiting list is maintained, having
regard to the circumstances that only one applicant/candidate is sought
to be accommodated, and more importantly, the respondent applicant
was equal in merit, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is
W.P.(C) 5706/2014 Page 4
not merited. It is accordingly dismissed along with the pending
application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2014
W.P.(C) 5706/2014 Page 5
