Delhi High Court
Shyam Sunder Gupta & Ors vs The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate ... on 29 April, 2016
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3452/2016
Date of decision: 29th April, 2016
SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
THE SECRETARY, DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION
BOARD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Mr.
Yash S. Vijay, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
This writ petition impugns order dated 4th January, 2016 passed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby O.A.
No.2469/2014 filed by the three petitioners before us and one Avnish
Kumar, was dismissed. It appears that the said Avnish Kumar has not filed
any writ petition before this Court.
2. Petitioner No.1, Shyam Sunder Gupta pursuant to advertisement
Nos.001/2010 and 2/2010 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection
Board had applied for selection and appointment as Trained Graduate
Teacher (Social Science), Male under Post Code No. 09/10 and under Post
Code No.59/10, respectively. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Shilpa Soni
and Jyoti had similarly applied for appointment as Trained Graduate
Teacher (Social Science), Female under Post Code No.10/10 and Post Code
No. 60/10, pursuant to the two advertisement dated 001/2010 and 2/2010.
3. In the result published on 24th August, 2012, separate lists of
candidates from unreserved category, candidates from OBC category and
from Schedule Caste category were declared successful against Post Code
No. 09/10, Post Code No.10/10, Post Code No.59/10 and Post Code
No.60/10. These candidates were shortlisted for checking and marking of
part-II i.e. descriptive examination paper.
4. The petitioners herein were shown as qualified and eligible for part-II
examination.
5. Subsequently, the respondents published a revised result notice dated
27th September, 2012 consisting of same number of candidates in general
category, in OBC category and in the Schedule Caste category relating to
Post Code Nos.09/10, 10/10, 59/10 and 60/10. In this list, the petitioners did
not figure.
6. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the aforesaid OA before the Tribunal,
which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
7. Contention of the petitioners is that the revised result was published
without any justification and cause. It is alleged that there was tampering
with marks etc.
8. The respondents in their counter affidavit before the Tribunal had
explained the factual position and why the revised result or select list was
published on 27th September, 2012. The revised list was necessary to
correct the error/mistake in the earlier result published on 28th April, 2012.
It was explained that due to technical fault, the candidates, who had applied
for different post codes were not considered for the second or other code.
Only the first post code was considered. The error had occurred as only one
ID irrespective of the post codes in which application was made was issued
to each candidate. The said candidate ID was loaded in the master data
provided by the notified agency. In these circumstances, the result was
reprocessed and consequentially the revised and correct merit list was
published on 27th September, 2010.
9. Factually there is no challenge to the aforesaid narration and the
reason given by the respondents, which we find is cogent and adequately
explains the reason why the revised result was published. The
advertisements would show that vacancies in different post codes were
advertised.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per paragraph
8 of the advertisement, more than one application by the same candidate for
the same post was to be treated as invalid application. Paragraph 8, sub-para
„k‟ reads as under:-
"k. More than one application for the post by the same
candidate for the same post."
In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention and has
interpreted the paragraph to mean that a candidate was not entitled to file
more than one application for the same post. More than one application for
the same post were to be treated as invalid. The clause did not deal and
prohibit application for multiple post codes.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to
paragraph (ii) of the writ petition. It is submitted that the respondents have
committed a mistake by repeating the name of the candidates in the revised
list published on 27th September, 2012 against two post codes as both the
post codes relate to one post i.e. Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Science).
In other words, the contention is that same roll numbers find mention in
different post codes i.e. a candidate has been selected for Part-II descriptive
examination under Post Code No.9/10 as well as 59/10 and also 10/10 as
well as 60/10. It is pointed out that a common first stage examination had
taken place for advertisement Nos.001/10 and 2/10. It is not difficult to
appreciate and understand why common roll numbers are to be found in the
result for different post codes. Advertisement No.001/2010 was published
on 22nd February, 2010 and Advertisement No.02/10 was published on 12 th
July, 2010. In some cases, candidates had applied under both the
advertisement. However, there would be cases in which a candidate would
have applied only under one advertisement. The dates on which the
application should be received under the two advertisements would be
different. The contention that common Part-I and even Part-II examination
were held and, therefore, one select list should have been published, must be
rejected. It is obvious that separate different lists had to be published for
there were two advertisements. Separate results had to be declared. It was
not possible to have a common or a joint result list for both the
advertisements.
12. We do not, therefore, find any error in the order passed by the
Tribunal. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
APRIL 29, 2016
NA
