Delhi High Court
Delhi Subordinate Service ... vs Rahul Dabas on 23 August, 2021
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decision delivered on: 23.08.2021
+ W.P.(C) 8777/2021 and CM Nos. 27329-30/2021
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD & ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel, DSSSB with Ms. Tania
Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh
and Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates.
versus
RAHUL DABAS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Counsel for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
CM No. 27330/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 8777/2021 and CM No. 27329/2021[Application filed on behalf
of the petitioners seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order
dated 17.06.2021]
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.06.2021,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"),
Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2107/2016.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:25.08.2021
14:08:24
3. The short issue involved in the present matter, according to Ms.
Avnish Ahlawat, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, is: whether the
Tribunal could have asked the petitioners to consider the case of the
respondent [i.e., the original applicant] for appointment to the subject post,
when he had himself not indicated in the OMR sheet that he fell in the
category of OBC "from Delhi"?
4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that, the Tribunal was of
the view that, the aforementioned aspect [that is, the category claimed by the
candidate], forms material part of the verification, which is to take place,
only when the concerned candidate appears physically with his credentials.
4.1. Pertinently, the Tribunal has not directed the petitioners to consider
the respondent for appointment to the subject post, even if he failed to
establish that he was an OBC "from Delhi".
4.2. In other words, the Tribunal, in effect, has taken the view that,
merely, because the respondent had failed to correctly indicate in the OMR
sheet that he is an OBC "from Delhi", the petitioners cannot disentitle him
from being considered for the subject post, if he was otherwise eligible, and
able to establish, based on relevant documents, that he was an OBC "from
Delhi".
5. Therefore, given the foregoing, we are of the view that, no
interference is called for with the impugned order. The Tribunal has
exercised its discretion based on eminently reasonable and fair grounds
5.1. Via the impugned order, the petitioners have only been directed to
verify the credentials of the respondent as to whether or not he is an OBC
"from Delhi", as claimed by him. This will, obviously, be subject to the
petitioner fulfilling other eligibility criteria stipulated qua appointment to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:25.08.2021
14:08:24
subject post.
6. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. Consequently, the pending
application shall also stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
AUGUST 23, 2021/mr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:25.08.2021
14:08:24
