Pushpa Devi vs Rajesh Bhatia And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1971 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                       Decided on: 24.04.2017

+      W.P.(C) 3460/2017 and CM APPL.15141/2017 (stay)

       PUSHPA DEVI                                                 ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr Sachin Kumar Jain, Adv.
                           versus
       RAJESH BHATIA AND ANR                                   ..... Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL)

CM APPL. 15142/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3460/2017 and CM APPL.15141/2017 (stay)

1. Vide this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated

27.03.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), whereby her

contempt petition (CP No.548/2016) was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied in response

to the advertisement No.02/2012 for the Post of TGT (Code No.109/2012) and

she was issued the E-Admit card No. 45000830. Later on, she also applied for

the said Post published in advertisement no.01/13 - Post Code no.7/13. Her

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 1 application for Post Code No. 07/13 was rejected on the ground of her "not

having the requisite qualification as on closing date". The common examination

of both the Post Code Nos. 109/12 and 07/13 was held on 28.12.2014. The

petitioner had appeared in the examination held on 28.12.2014 by using the

admit card issued in respect of advertisement No.2/2012. Her contention was

that at the time of downloading of the admit card, a message was displayed on

the website of the respondent that for common candidates who had applied

against both advertisements of 2012 and 2013, the admit card will display only

OARS applied post code 2/12 but such candidates will get benefits for all the

post code applied at the time of result generation. She learnt that her candidature

for Post Code 07/13 in Advertisement no.1/13 was rejected. She challenged her

rejection of candidature against Post Code 07/13 vide Original Application No.

203/2015. When the results were declared, the petitioner-although had secured

103.25 marks in the said exam, which was more than the last selected candidate

in the merit list of advertisement no.1/2013, yet her name did not appear in the

merit list of advertisement no.1/2013. She claimed the following reliefs in her

O.A.-

"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent to include the name of applicant in the list of eligible candidates released/uploaded on website of respondent no.1 for examination for the post TGT Hindi Female (Post code No.7/13) already held on 28.12.2014 and consider the candidature of applicant for the post

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 2 code 07/13 under advertisement no.01/13 besides post 109/12 under advertisement no. 02/12 and any other or further order/relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in favour of the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Disposing the said application, the Tribunal issued the following directions vide its order dated 18.01.2016-

"30. Therefore, both the OAs are partly allowed, and the respondents are directed to call the applicants of these two OAs for verification of their documents to verify their actual qualifications as possessed by them as on the last date for filling up of the application forms for the years 2012, as well as 2013, and to consider their candidature, and if their qualifications are found to be fulfilled as on the last date of receipt of those applications, as per the Notifications issued for the respective years 2012 & 2013, by the abovementioned Advertisements, to allow their candidature for the relevant posts."

4. As per the directions contained in the Tribunal's order dated 18.01.2016,

the petitioner was called upon for verification of her documents vide letter dated

23.06.2016. Her candidature for Advertisement No.01/13 for Post Code 07/13

for the post TGT, however, was rejected by the respondents vide order dated

07.10.2016 on the ground that the petitioner did not have the valid admit card.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Contempt Petition bearing

CP No. 548/2016 in which the impugned order was passed. Vide impugned

order the Tribunal has, after considering all the contentions of the petitioner,

dismissed the said contempt petition.

5. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the

Tribunal has erred both in facts and law and has failed to take into consideration

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 3 its own order dated 18.01.2016, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed her

O.A. and directed the respondents to verify her documents and actual

qualifications as on the last date of filling up the applications for the year 2012

and 2013 and consider her candidature, if she fulfills the qualifications as per the

notifications issued for the respective years, for the relevant posts. The petitioner

submits that the respondents have failed to follow these directions while issuing

the order dated 07.10.2016, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the

same ground. Petitioner submits that the observation of the Tribunal that the

recruitment process had already been closed is wrong and unfounded, since the

selection process was continuing as on 27.01.2017-on which date the second

merit list was issued by the respondent No.1 and the candidates were called upon

for verification of the documents for various post codes, including Post Code

07/13. It is submitted that while the candidates who had secured 92.5 marks had

been called/selected, the petitioner who had secured 103.25 marks has not been

selected and this fact has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. It is submitted

that the respondents have not complied with the directions in the Tribunal's

judgment/order dated 18.01.2016 and thus has committed contempt.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also

perused the record. Indisputably, the petitioner had applied for the post of TGT

advertised in two independent advertisements no. 2/12 and 1/13 and a common

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 4 exam for both the posts advertised in these two advertisements were held on

28.12.2014. She was issued admit card in response to her application made qua

advertisement no.2/12, but her application was rejected for advertisement

no.1/13. She had applied for the same post i.e. TGT and code of the post for

TGT in advertisement no.2/12 was 109/12, and in advertisement no.1/13 it was

07/13. She had challenged the rejection of her candidature for the Post Code

No.07/13 in O.A.No.203/2015. Vide order dated 18.01.2016, the Tribunal,

while partly allowing the O.A., directed the respondents to call the petitioner for

verification of her documents and qualifications as on the last date of the receipt

of the application, and to allow her candidature for the relevant post. In

compliance of this order the respondents called upon the petitioner and checked

her candidature which they did not find as per the requirements in the

advertisement no.1/13, and therefore rejected it.

7. There is no dispute that the prospective candidates had to apply

independently for the post advertised vide advertisements no.2/12 and 1/13 and

the Codes for the same post in both the advertisements were different i.e. 109/12

and 7/13 respectively. Although the common exam for both the advertisements

was held on i.e. 28.12.2014, the results for the two advertisements were declared

separately. The contention of the petitioner is that although she had secured

103.25 marks, she was not declared successful, but the candidates who had

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 5 secured 92.5 marks in Post code 07/13 (advertisement no.1/13), had been

selected. It is apparent that the result had been declared after the disposal of OA

of the petitioner. Her contention that the marks secured by her in the

examination for Post Code No.109/12 (advertisement no.2/12) be considered, as

having been secured by her for Post Code No. 07/13 (advertisement No.1/13),

on the ground that common exam was held for both the advertisements and post

codes, has no merit in view of the fact that while disposing of her O.A., the

Tribunal has rejected her prayer to ".....consider the candidature of applicant for

the post code 7/13 under advertisement no.01/13 besides post 109/12 under

advertisement no.02/12....", and no directions to the effect that her candidature

for Post Code No. 109/12 under advertisement no.2/12 be considered as her

candidature for the post code no.07/13 under advertisement no.01/13 was

issued. On the other hand, the Tribunal in its order 18.01.2016 has clarified

that, even if, on reconsidering the actual qualifications and documents possessed

by the petitioner on the date of filling up the application form, they are found to

be eligible candidates in the respective years, or are permitted to appear at any

supplementary or subsequent examination for the same/similar post, no benefit

will accrue to her and "their candidature will be considered to have been only

notionally allowed for appearance in the examination held on 28.12.2014".

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 6

8. In the background of these facts, no fault can be found in the impugned

order. Undisputedly, the candidature of the petitioner in respect of advertisement

No.01/13 was rejected. When she appeared in the common examination, her

appearance could be considered only in respect of the advertisement No.2/12. In

view of the fact that the prayer of the petitioner to consider her candidature for

advertisement no.02/12, also for advertisement no.01/13, was rejected by the

Tribunal, and her candidature for the advertisement no. 1/13 was directed to be

considered only "notionally", no substantive right accrued in favour of the

petitioner for consideration of her marks obtained by her in exam for

advertisement no. 2/12 also for advertisement no.1/13. Both were independent

advertisements and the examination result had to be considered independently.

The result of candidates who had applied against advertisement no.2/12 could

not be merged with the result of the candidates who applied qua advertisement

no.1/13. The applications were invited independently, merit list prepared

separately. Therefore, even if the candidature of the petitioner was approved

notionally, since no relief was given by the Tribunal in its order dated

18.01.2016 for consideration of the marks obtained by her in exam qua

advertisement no.2/12, against advertisement no.1/13, the petitioner's marks qua

the exam for advertisement No.2/12 could not have been considered qua her

rejected candidature for advertisement No.1/13. The petitioner had accepted the

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 7 said order dated 18.01.2016 and had not challenged it. She had only preferred

the contempt petition and the Tribunal in the impugned order has correctly held

that there was no violation of the order dated 18.01.2016.

9. We find no fault with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition has no

merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE)

VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE)

APRIL 24, 2017 BG

WP(C) No.3460/2017 Page 8