Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another vs Vandana

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

CM No. 6152/2011

Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P. (C) No. 2893/2011

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board has filed the present petition to assail the order dated 2nd August, 2010 allowing O.A. No. 429/2010 filed by the Respondent-Vandana.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that as per the selection procedure and the advertisement there was no waiting list and no panel was prepared and, therefore, even if three candidates were found to be ineligible, the vacancies lapsed and the Respondent has no right. It is submitted that the three vacancies have been included in the list of future vacancies.

We have considered the contention of the Petitioner and examined the paper book. We entirely agree with the findings/reasoning given by the tribunal. In October, 2007, an advertisement was published for thirty posts of Drawing Teachers. Eleven posts were reserved for OBC category. The Respondent qualified in both the objective type and the main examination and was shown at serial No. 128 in the merit list. The Respondent belongs to OBC category.

The list of OBC candidates or the selection list is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. The said list gives the marks obtained by the candidates out of 200. The last column has the heading "remarks". In the "remarks it is stated whether the candidate is eligible or not. It is noticeable that against several candidates in the "remark column" it is mentioned "eligible" or "not eligible". If a candidate has been selected in some other category, then the same is also stated in the remarks column. However, against three candidates, namely, Deepti Sachdeva, Renu Bariwal and Archana Mourya under the "remark column" it is mentioned "pending, done B. Com. (P)" or "Pending-OBC certificate not enclosed". B. Com. is not the requisite minimum qualification and, therefore, Deepti Sachdeva was not eligible. Similarly, Renu Bariwal and Archana Mourya were not OBC candidates and were, therefore, not eligible. It is clear from the aforesaid that these three candidates were disqualified because they were not eligible either because they did not have the requisite minimum prescribed qualification or did not belong to the OBC category. Their names could not have been included in the list of the eleven successful candidates in the OBC category. Only eligible candidates who had qualified could be included in the selection list. The selection list was not drawn as per law.

In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Petitioners that the tribunal has directed appointment from the waiting list. Tribunal has not held there was a waiting list or candidates from the waiting list should be appointed. In the present case, the aforesaid three candidates should not have been included in the panel of selected candidates and did not form part of the select/merit list. The selection list or the merit list should have consisted of the top eleven eligible candidates. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners was asked whether the Respondent would have qualified in case the three candidates mentioned above were excluded from the merit list. She has answered in affirmative. This being the factual position, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.