Delhi High Court
Sudhir Kumar vs Director (Recruitment Cell) ... on 18 April, 2016
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10131/2015
Date of decision: 18th April, 2016
SUDHIR KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma with Mr.
Pawan Kumar, Adv.
Versus
DIRECTOR (RECRUITMENT CELL) DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal with Mr. Sanjay
Singh, Advs. for R-DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Review Pet. 115/2016
1. We have heard counsel for the review applicant - Sudhir
Kumar and counsel for the non-applicant - Delhi Development
Authority.
2. We accept that there is a mistake in the last paragraph on the
second page of our order dated 29.01.2016. In our order dated
29.01.2016, we had recorded as under:
"As there were 141 vacancies in general category,
five times of the said number, i.e., 1431 candidates
were notified/short-listed for the typing test on the
basis of marks obtained in the said examination."
The said paragraph should read as under:
"The advertisement inviting applications, in
paragraph 10, had stipulated candidates equal to
five times the number of vacancies were to be invited
for typing test. As there were 144 vacancies in the
general category, five times of the said number, i.e.,
725; were notified/shortlisted for the typing test on
the basis of marks obtained in written examination.
The cut-off for general category candidates was
71.99 per cent. The petitioner having secured 65.33
per cent marks, would not have been qualified for
the typing test as a general category candidate."
(emphasis supplied)
3. The aforesaid correction would not make any difference to the
final outcome.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of
arguments has submitted that the petitioner is not seeking quashing of
the selection list whereby others have been selected, and seeks and
prays for his selection and appointment. However, during the course
of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Scheduled
Caste list and submitted that non-Scheduled Caste candidates have
been included in the said list. We are not inclined to comment on the
said aspect as these issues were never raised before the Tribunal and
before us. The said candidates are not parties before us. Of course if
there is any error or mistake made by the respondent, they would
proceed as per law.
5. It is quite clear to us that the petitioner herein was allowed to
participate in the typing test as an OBC candidate who had qualified
the cut off percentage in the written examination applicable to the
OBC candidates. The petitioner had secured 65.33%. In fact, it is not
urged and argued that the applicant had secured more marks than the
cut off of 71.99% marks for the general category candidates. The
applicant does not claim that he was entitled to qualify as an OBC
candidate. As a general category candidate he did not qualify the cut
off in the written examination. The applicant's contention that he
should be considered as qualified as a general category candidate for
he had met the cut off in the written examination for an OBC
candidate and had cleared the typing test as a general candidate, has to
be rejected. The plea and contention is unacceptable.
6. In view of the said position, we do not find any merit and
cannot accept the prayer of the applicant that he should be appointed.
The petition to this extent, is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
APRIL 18, 2016/acm
