Delhi High Court
Satish vs Staff Selection Commission on 28 May, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 28th May, 2021.
+ W.P.(C) 5014/2021
SATISH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Tripathi & Ms. Shivani
Aggarwal, Advocates.
Versus
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain with
Mr. Sahaj Garg & Mr. Vedansh
Anand, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for
Delhi Police.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. On 24th May, 2021, when this petition first came before us inter alia
the following order was passed:
"3. The petitioner, in pursuance to the Notification dated 3rd March,
2018 of the respondent Staff Selection Commission (SSC), of
recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police, Central Armed Police
Forces and Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Central Industrial Security
Force, participated in the recruitment process and qualified till the
Detailed Medical Examination stage and was declared medically fit.
Thereafter, the document verification of the successful candidates was
to take place.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, that since notwithstanding the
notification on the official website of the respondent SSC, the
petitioner also received a personal intimation of the date for the
Detailed Medical Examination, he remained under the impression that
he would similarly be personally communicated the date for document
verification; however on not receiving any intimation, on enquiry, he
learnt that document verification of successful candidates was
conducted from 8th March, 2021 to 13th March, 2021 and in which he
could not participate. It is further the case of the petitioner that he
represented on 31st March, 2021 and 10th April, 2021, but to no
avail. It is yet further the case of the petitioner, that he is working as
the Naib Court in Tis Hazari Courts and owing to his work also,
failed to check the official website of the respondent SSC to know of
the date of document verification published.
5. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether the
petitioner participated in the recruitment process as a departmental
candidate, through official channel.
6. The counsel for the petitioner replies in the affirmative.
7. We have further enquired from the counsel for the petitioner,
whether the final result of the recruitment aforesaid has been
declared.
8. The counsel for the petitioner states that the final result of the
departmental candidates has not been declared as yet.
9. The counsel for the respondent SSC appears on advance notice
and states that he has a short affidavit ready and be permitted to place
the same on record.
10. We have enquired from the counsel for the respondent SSC,
whether the final result of the departmental candidates has been
declared.
11. The counsel for the respondent SSC is not having instructions on
the aforesaid aspect.
12. We have further enquired from the counsel for the respondent
SSC, how many vacancies existed for the departmental candidates and
how many of the said vacancies have been filled up.
13. The counsel for the respondent SSC does not have instructions on
the said aspect also but states that there were 2,299 successful
candidates and out of which 1,999 admit cards were uploaded for
document verification and out of which 1,902 candidates appeared for
document verification.
14. Issue notice.
15. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondent.
16. The affidavit, which is stated to be ready, be filed in the course of
the day and / or be e-mailed to the Court Master.
17. The concerned officer of the respondent SSC, in the know of all
the aforesaid facts, to remain present on the next date of hearing.
18. List on 27th May, 2021."
2. Yesterday, on 27th May, 2021 it was informed that though the result
of the departmental candidates had not been declared till then but was likely
to be declared by evening. However, whether all the vacancies of
departmental candidates had been filled, was still not disclosed. The matter
was adjourned to today and presence on behalf of Delhi Police directed.
3. In pursuance to yesterday's order, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
appears for Delhi Police and in response to our query informs that in the
result declared yesterday, all the 137 vacancies of departmental candidates
have been filled up. It is further stated that the petitioner, though had
sufficient time to upload his documents for verification, failed to do so.
4. Once it is so, we cannot give preference to the petitioner, who
admittedly was at fault, over another candidate who has been selected and
who though lower in rank on merits than the petitioner, complied with the
selection formalities in time and has been selected. In law, we are unable to
give any advantage to a candidate, admittedly in default, over a candidate in
compliance. We have recently in Union of India Vs. Shailja Saxena
MANU/DE/0502/2021 held that when rights claimed are to a limited
number of posts/vacancies and grant of relief to the petitioner has to be to
the prejudice to others, the Court, without hearing the others and/or without
considering the comparative claims of the petitioner and the said others,
cannot grant relief to the petitioner. On the said anvil, the petitioner cannot
be directed to be selected/considered.
5. The counsel for the petitioner then contends that this was the last
chance of the petitioner to appear for direct recruitment inasmuch as the
petitioner, for the next year was/is overage; permission to participate beyond
the prescribed age is sought.
6. The facts of the case, as noted in the order dated 24 th May, 2021, do
not permit us to grant this indulgence either to the petitioner. It is not as if
the petitioner has been denied the relief, seeking which this petition has been
filed, in spite of being entitled thereto and without any fault on his part or
for reasons attributable to others and in which case the Courts have at times
moulded the relief and granted another opportunity, as sought by the counsel
for the petitioner. Here, the petitioner is admittedly at fault in non-
compliance with the selection procedure. Only for the reason of finding the
default of the petitioner to be not grave, we on 24 th May, 2021 had issued
notice to explore whether any benefit could be given to the petitioner.
Having now found that it is not so possible, we cannot bend the rules as to
maximum age for the petitioner who has himself to blame for, in spite of
clearing several stages of the selection process, having defaulted in the end.
7. The petition fails and is dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
MAY 28, 2021/ak
