Delhi High Court
Kavita vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 13 December, 2019
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.12.2019
+ W.P.(C) 13185/2019
KAVITA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel with Mr. N.K. Singh,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No. 53673/2019 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.13185/2019
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered by the
Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') dated 14.10.2019 by
which O.A. filed by the petitioner stands rejected.
2. The petitioner had appeared in the examination pursuant to an
WPC 13185/2019 page 1 of 7
advertisement issued by respondent No.2 with regard to 20 vacancies
for appointment to the post of TGT (Natural Science). The petitioner
was declared successful in the examination; however she did not find
place in the list of first 20 successful candidates. Out of the successful
candidates, four candidates did not join; and therefore another list
consisting of the next 10 candidates was prepared, in which list the
petitioner was shown at serial No.8. From the second list prepared, the
dossiers of the first four candidates were sent to the user department
by respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that all 20
vacancies were not filled-up; and that therefore the candidates
mentioned in the second list should have been offered posts.
3. The Tribunal has rejected the O.A. on the ground that the
second list was valid for a period of one year and thereafter the posts
were carried-forward; another examination was held, in which the
petitioner had participated but was not successful. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that despite the fact that the second examination has
been held and the petitioner was not successful in it, the petitioner
should be offered employment based on the 2013 examination since at
least four persons did not join and those posts were left vacant.
4. The facts which have been noticed hereinabove are not in
dispute to the extent that the petitioner had participated in the
examination pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2013; and that
she was declared successful but was not in the list of first 20
candidates. Her name is shown in the second list prepared, which is
reproduced below:-
WPC 13185/2019 page 2 of 7
"
Sl. Roll No. Name DOB Marks
No
1 49101266 AARTI 04/07/1987 77.75
2 49100347 SARITA 01/01/1980 76.75
MANN
3 49000493 PRIYANKA 01/12/1988 76.75
4 49000574 POOJA 25/09/1987 76.5
SHOKEEN
5 49000159 LAXMI 09/02/1989 76.5
YADAV
6 49001000 POONAM 13/07/1986 76.25
BERIWAL
7 49000175 RITU 23/05/1990 76
KHATRI
8 49000151 KAVITA 27/09/1988 75.25
9 49000358 AKANKSHA 15/06/1989 74.5
DESHWAL
10 49000312 NIDHI 08/09/1990 74.5
SANWAL
„
5. As per the second list the petitioner's name is shown at serial
No.8. The dossiers of the first four candidates on this list were sent to
the user department as per their request, since out of the 20 selected
candidates, four candidates did not join. As the petitioner was not
considered, a representation was made which was decided vide order
WPC 13185/2019 page 3 of 7
dated 22.07.2019 which reads as under:-
" No.F.No.7013/LC/DSSSB/19/3319 Dated:
22/07/2019
ORDER
This order shall dispose of the representation dated
19/06/2018 filed by Ms. Kavita (Roll No.49000151),
candidate for the post of TGT (Natural Science) Female,
Post Code-01/13 in Directorate of Education in compliance
of the directions of Hon'ble CAT order dated 12/03/2019 in
OA No.812/2019.
2. The Hon'ble CAT while disposing the Original
Application No.3070/2018 has directed as under:-
"4. We, therefore, dispose of .the OA, directing the
respondents to pass orders on the representation dated
19.06.2018, submitted by the applicant and to indicate: (a)
as to how many vacancies of OBC/Female in the post of
TGT (Natural Science) were filled up and; (b) if all the posts
are not filled up, the reasons therefore. It is needless to
mention that if the posts are yet to be filled up, the case of
the applicant and other similarly situated candidates shall
be considered within four weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order".
3. That the applicant vide her representation dated
19/06/2018 has stated that the User department has
returned the dossiers in respect of 04 OBC candidates,
whose candidature were rejected, for replacement as these
candidates did not join the said post.. She has further stated
that apart from the above mentioned 04 posts, 04 more posts
are not filled up and the result of 16 candidates were
declared till date and it is mandatory on the part of
selecting agency to fill up the unfilled vacancies.
4. She has, therefore, prayed that her name appears at
S.No.8 of the notice dated 08.02.2017 and appointment till
S.No.4 have already been made and, therefore, if the
remaining vacancies are filled up, she stands a good chance
WPC 13185/2019 page 4 of 7
of her nomination to the post of TGT (Natural Science)
Female, Post Code-11/13.
5. As per record, there are 20 vacancies under OBC
category was notified. Out of which 16 vacancies have
already been filled and the candidature of 04 candidates,
who are higher in merit than the applicant, are kept-pending
for want of clarification and these candidates were given
opportunity to upload the requisite documents. The last
candidate provisionally nominated under OBC category
scored 76.50 marks. The applicant, Ms. Kavita has scored
75.25 marks and, therefore, her candidature cannot be
considered for nomination.
6. As regards the contention of the applicant regarding
cancellation of the candidature of 04 candidates and
returning their dossiers for replacement, the Board, as per
policy, drew candidates from waiting panel which is valid
for one year from the date of declaration of results. The
result for the post of TGT (Natural Science), Post Code-
11/13 was declared on 03/08/2016 and the waiting panel is
valid upto 02/08/2017. However, the User department, i.e.
Directorate of Education returned the dossiers of 04
candidates vide letters dated 29/09/2017 & 05/02/2018 i.e.
after the expiry of waiting panel. The unfilled vacancies
were also returned to the User department for future
notification, as per DOPT guidelines.
7, It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant
unfortunately stood no chance for her nomination as there
were 20 candidates in the merit list between her and the last
provisionally nominated candidate.
8. Keeping in view the above stated position, it is conveyed
that the candidature of the applicant, Ms. Kavita cannot be
considered for selection to the post of TGT (Natural
Science) Female, Post Code-11/13 under UR (sic) category.
WPC 13185/2019 page 5 of 7
This issues with the approval of Competent Authority."
6. In this order the user department has clearly noted the
contention of the petitioner and thereafter informed the petitioner that
20 vacancies under OBC category were available, out of which 16
vacancies had already been filled-up by candidates who were higher in
merit than the petitioner. The last candidate provisionally nominated
under the OBC category secured 76.50 marks while the petitioner had
secured 75.25 marks; and therefore her candidature could not be
considered for nomination. The grievance of the petitioner was also
examined regarding cancellation of four candidates and returning of
their dossiers for replacement to the board. It was explained that the
wait-list is valid only for one year from the date of declaration of
results. The results were declared on 03.08.2016; and the waiting
panel was valid upto 02.08.2017; and that the user department
returned the dossiers of four candidates after the expiry of the waiting
panel.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
8. In our view, the decision rendered by the respondents, while
deciding the representation of the petitioner, requires no interference.
It is to be noted that the petitioner stakes her claim with respect to an
examination held in the year 2013, although thereafter a second
examination has already been held and though the petitioner
participated in the later examination, she was declared unsuccessful.
After the second examination having been held, no relief can be
WPC 13185/2019 page 6 of 7
granted in favour of the petitioner for an examination held earlier.
9. We accordingly find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal;
no grounds are made-out for interference by way of the present
petition, which is therefore dismissed.
C.M. Nos.53672/2019 and 53674/2019
10. Since the main writ petition is dismissed, these applications are
also dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
DECEMBER 13, 2019
Ne
WPC 13185/2019 page 7 of 7
