Allowed

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Pooja

Delhi HC16 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/5317/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board challenging an order directing them to evaluate the Part-II exam of a respondent who scored 48%. The Court held that since the advertisement restricted shortlisting to 10 times the vacancies, the respondent was correctly excluded despite securing the minimum qualifying marks for the preliminary exam, ren

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 14.2.2014 set aside; OA treated as dismissed.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5317/2014

¶3

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS. ..... Petitioners

¶4

Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC

¶5

versus

¶6

POOJA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.02.2016

¶10

This writ petition by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Director of Education, impugns the order dated 11.2.2014 passed in OA No.4124/2012, whereby the petitioners have been directed to evaluate Part-II Examination Paper of Ms. Pooja, the respondent herein and consider her case as per merit for appointment as TGT (SS) (Female).

¶11

The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has referred to the fact that the Advertisement/Notification inviting applications, the minimum qualifying marks in Part-I Preliminary Examination as required were 40%. The Tribunal holds that the respondent having secured 40% marks in Part-I Examination, the petitioners had erred in not evaluating Part-II Examination Papers of the respondent. The petitioners had changed the criteria of qualifying marks from 40% to 50%. This change made midway after the

¶12

selection process has commenced, it was held, was contrary to the Advertisement/Notification.

¶13

In our opinion, the Tribunal has erred and has failed to notice that there was another significant stipulation that the candidates to be shortlisted would be restricted to maximum of 6 to 10 times the number of vacancies. The exact stipulation in the Advertisement/Notification reads as under:

¶14

".......(4) The minimum qualifying marks for Preliminary Examination is 40% for General Category candidates and 30% for Reserved Category candidates subject to maximum of 10(Ten) times the number of vacancies. The minimum qualifying marks for main Examination/One Tier Main Examination is 45 % for General Category candidates & 35% for Reserved Category candidates....."

¶15

The Advertisement in question was for selection for 72 posts of TGT (SS) (Female) in General Category. This necessarily means that the top 720 candidates in Part-I Examination were eligible and had to be shortlisted for Part-II descriptive type examination. Part-II Examination papers of the shortlisted candidates were to be checked and evaluated. This position was affirmatively stated and was made known to the candidates in the General Instruction No.9 for the candidates who had appeared in the Main Examination (descriptive type), which reads:-

¶16

“9. The minimum qualifying marks for Preliminary Exam is 40% for General and 30% for Reserved Categories subject to 10 times the number of vacancies and for Main Exam is - 45% for General,35% for Reserved Categories.”

¶17

It is noticeable that the examinations for Part-I and II were conducted together. Albeit , this would not make any difference in terms of Clause 4 of the Advertisement/Notification.

¶18

The petitioners have filed before us a chart of 714 candidates who were shortlisted for Part-II Examination. The candidates from Sl. Nos.649 to 714 had secured 50% marks. The respondent, in the present case, has secured 48% marks, which is an admitted position. The gap between the last shortlisted candidate at serial No.714 and the respondent was of two marks, which considering that almost 65 candidates had secured 50 marks, was substantial. This being the factual position, the respondent was rightly not shortlisted.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this plea of shortlisting was not raised before the Tribunal and is not adverted to in the impugned order. This plea was raised in the counter affidavit, for the affidavit did state that Part-I Examination was qualifying in nature and the shortlisted candidates had to be restricted to 6 to 10 times the number of vacancies, including bracketed vacancies, subject to the candidates obtaining the prescribed minimum qualifying marks. It is apparent that this was the criteria for shortlisting 714 candidates.

¶20

Another contention raised by the petitioner is that her name was included in the first list of the shortlisted candidates published on 24.8.2012. This is factually correct, but the petitioner has pointed out that these were errors in the said merit-list and on re-checking and verification of the marks obtained in the Part-I Examination, a fresh merit-list dated 3.9.2012 was published. Part-I Examination was an objective type question paper. The respondent has not alleged or contended that the subsequent merit-list dated 3.9.2012 was an attempt to select candidates through the backdoor or there had been interpolation of marks. No such allegation was made in the OA or before us.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid position, we allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 14.2.2014 and the directions given therein. The OA filed by the respondent will be treated as dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶22

SANJIV KHANNA, J

¶23

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶24

FEBRUARY 16, 2016 tp

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Pooja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. v. Pooja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpanjali Farm Owners and Residents Welfare Association, Bijwasan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) & Ors.

Moti Kumari Vs Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

Abhishek Prakash Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi, India & Anr.

Mustajab Ali Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Pan Parag India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)Delhi & Anr.

Kothari Product Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs Export Inland Container Depot Tuglakabad New Delhi & Anr.

Npt Papers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Accountant Girish Bagdi Vs Prinicipal Commiissioner of Customs Icd (Import) Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Mahipal Dabas & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nirmala Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.

Rishipal Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Durga Dutt Saini

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs Nem Pal

Union of India & Ors. Vs Tarun Kumar Tiwari

A.K. Paswan Vs Union of India and Ors.