Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors vs Rajeev & Anr on 30 January, 2020
$~24 to 45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order : 30th January, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 1445/2019, CM APPL 6622/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
ANITA KATARIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 3103/2019, CM APPL 14220/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
SOMA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 3104/2019, CM APPL 14222/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
NEERAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 3107/2019, CM APPL 14230/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
SUNIL DEVI ..... Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 3943/2019, CM APPL 17895/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
SARITA RANI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 4049/2019, CM APPL 18277/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
RASHMI DUA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 4051/2019, CM APPL 18281/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
ASHUM KUMAR KHARODI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 6176/2019, CM APPL 26552/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
KARUNA & ORS ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 1445/2019 & ors. Page 1 of 8
+ W.P.(C) 6213/2019, CM APPL 26673/2019
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
RAJEEV & ANR ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 8911/2019, CM APPL 36765/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
SHUCHI ..... Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 8917/2019, CM APPL 36777/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GEETA RANI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 8941/2019, CM APPL 36893/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
MANJU MEENA & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9091/2019 and C.M. No.37553/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
MS. SWATI MISHRA ..... Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 9435/2019, CM APPL 38822/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
SUSHOBHA YADAV ANR ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9903/2019 and C.M. No.40941/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
KANIKA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9904/2019 and C.M. No.40943/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
SUDESH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9910/2019 and C.M. No.41025/2019
W.P.(C) 1445/2019 & ors. Page 2 of 8
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
HARISH JHAKAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9911/2019 and C.M. No.41027/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
SARGAM AHLAWAT AND ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 10207/2019 and C.M. No.42087/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
AMIT JAYANT & ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 10212/2019 and C.M. No.42100/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
RENU DHANKAR & ORS ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 10600/2019 and C.M. No.43825/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
NEELAM RANI ..... Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 10854/2019 and C.M. No.44906/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
SAVITA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 9251/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
BHARTI DHAMA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Present : Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for petitioner/GNCTD
(Services) with Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate in all items.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents in W.P.(C)
Nos.3104/2019, 3943/2019, 4051/2019, 6176/2019 &
8941/2019.
W.P.(C) 1445/2019 & ors. Page 3 of 8
Mr. Harkesh, proxy counsel for Mr. Yogesh Kumar Malini,
Advocate for respondents in items No.25 & 32.
Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate for R-2 in item No.31.
Mr. Prabjot Kaur, proxy counsel for Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj,
Advocate for R-5 in item No.37.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by almost
identical orders passed by Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal').
2. To appreciate the submissions made by Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for petitioners, we deem it appropriate to
reproduce the operative portion of interim order passed by the Tribunal
in batch matters 'Soma and Others Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Others': O.A. No.463/2018 & others decided on 23.10.2018 :
"6. We, therefore, dispose of these OAs directing that :
(a) the respondents shall proceed to declare results of
the examination which was held in pursuance of
the impugned notification/advertisement.
(b) the interim order passed in these OAs, shall not be
construed as conferring eligibility upon them, but
the same shall be decided by the respondents
separately.
(c) in case the applicants or any of them are found to
be in the zone of selection, the respondents shall
inform such of them through a notice as to how
they are not eligible to participate in the selection
process, duly indicating the reasons.
(d) the applicants shall be entitled to submit their
explanation/representation putting forward their
grievance, within 15 days from the date of receipt
of such communication.
(e) further steps shall be taken by the respondents as
regards the applicants only after passing a
reasoned order, on the basis of the notice and
reply, if any.
(f) the verification as indicated shall be undertaken
along with the results in the examination.
It shall be open to the applicants to approach the Tribunal
if their grievance subsists. There shall be no order as to
costs."
3. It may also be noted that the above quoted order was followed in all
other matters, which are also listed before us today; and we are
informed that some other matters are yet to be filed in this court.
4. Mrs. Ahlawat submits that the O.As. could not have been decided
without deciding the issue raised; and directions could not have been
issued allowing the applicants to submit their applications offline when
a proper procedure for submitting the applications online was
prescribed. She further submits that vide the interim-orders passed, the
candidates who were prima-facie over-age and ineligible, for not having
cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), were also
permitted to appear in the examination. Directions were issued to
declare the results; and thereafter an unusual procedure was followed by
directing the petitioners herein to inform all the candidates who were in
the zone of selection through a notice as to why they are not eligible to
participate in the selection process indicating reasons. The Tribunal
further granted liberty to the applicants to submit their
explanations/representations putting forward their grievance within 15
days; and a direction has also been passed to the petitioners to pass a
reasoned order on the basis of such notice and reply.
5. Mrs. Ahlawat strongly urged before us that this procedure is untenable
in law since the public examination was to be conducted based on the
advertisement which was published in newspapers; and if in large-scale
public examinations such directions are passed, it would become
virtually impossible to fill-up vacancies for user-departments. She
submits that even otherwise, no purpose would be achieved in
informing the candidates the reasons for their rejection, since all the
candidates in these writ petitions and the O.As. before the Tribunal,
have essentially approached the Tribunal seeking age-relaxation and
relaxation of CTET qualification.
6. In this backdrop, counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of
the Tribunal should be set-aside, lest it send a wrong message and form
a precedent, which would be virtually impossible to apply within cases
where the number of candidates are even more than in the present
examination.
7. She further contends that the Tribunal completely lost track of the fact
that the issue raised in these petitions is no longer res integra since this
issue stands decided as far back as in the year 2008 in the judgment
rendered in Sachin Gupta & others Vs. DSSSB, 152 (2008) DLT 378
(DB) and is also squarely covered by a batch of matters in Raj Bala &
Another Vs. GNCTD & others: W.P. (C) 7240/2017 decided
23.08.2017.
8. Mrs. Ahlawat further submits that the issue of age-relaxation has also
already been covered in the judgment rendered in Annu & Others Vs.
GNCTD & Others: W.P. (C) 11328/2017 decided on 11.01.2018.
9. Mrs. Ahlawat contends that in absence of a finding that the applicants
before the Tribunal were entitled to the relief prayed for, the O.A. could
not have been disposed of on the basis of interim directions.
10. Mr. Aggarwal, who is appearing on behalf of the respondents in some
of the matters, submits that the present petitions have become
infructuous as the petitioners have already complied with the orders of
the Tribunal. He submits that out of approximately 3000
candidates/respondents, 2950 candidates have not qualified the
examination. As far as the remaining 50 respondents are concerned,
notices have been issued in most cases. He submits that in case those 50
persons, or any other person who has been rejected, has a surviving
grievance they would avail such remedy as may be available to them, in
accordance with law.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the
order passed by the Tribunal, relevant extracts of which we have
already reproduced above. The Tribunal granted leave to the applicants
to appear in the examination; and thereafter, vide the impugned orders,
all O.As. were allowed with directions to the petitioners to declare the
results; and as per direction "(c)" in the impugned order, if an applicant
was not eligible, the applicant was to be informed, giving reasons for
rejection; and thereafter, time was required to be given to the applicant
to put-forward their explanations/representations within 15 days; and
subsequently a reasoned order was to be passed by the petitioners.
12. In our view the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in passing such
directions, especially for the reason that there is no discussion on the
merits of the matter nor have the contentions of the parties been noted
muchless the law which has been relied upon. As noticed above
according to the petitioners, the legal position is against the
respondents. We are also of the view that the terms of the advertisement
could not have been varied by the Tribunal; and, as far as possible, the
court should be slow in treading on such a path since it can cause
serious prejudice to the rights of the parties. We are also of the
considered view that there was no necessity for calling upon the
petitioners to inform each applicant the reasons for rejection; and
thereafter putting in place an elaborate process by which representations
and explanations were to be received and reasoned orders were to be
passed. If such procedures are encouraged, public bodies like DSSSB,
UPSC etc. would find it impossible to conduct public examinations and
fill-up vacancies for the user-departments.
13. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal, being
conscious of the fact that to a large extent the orders already stand
complied with. We also make it clear that if any of the respondents are
aggrieved by the orders of rejection, they would be at liberty to seek
such remedy as available to them in accordance with law.
14. All the writ petitions and pending applications stand disposed of in
view of the above observations.
15. Future dates given in these matters, if any, stand cancelled.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
JANUARY 30, 2020/ck
