Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 03 CAT CK 0015

Shiv Kumar Malik s/o Mr. Satyapal Malik vs Chief Secretary, Govt. NCT Of Delhi

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 1 March 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Mohd. Jamshed, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 723 Of 2019 With Miscellaneous Application No. 808, 809 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 348 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The Delhi Jal Board proposed to appoint the Junior Engineers (Electrical & Mechanical) and accordingly entrusted the selection process to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the 2nd respondent herein. The applicant responded to the Vacancy Notice / Advertisement No.01/15. He belongs to OBC category. It is stated that he appeared in the two examinations conducted for this purpose and secured 72.25 marks. The cut-off marks for OBC category is 69.75.

2.

The applicant contends that subsequent to declaration of result, he was required to upload his details through e-dossier and accordingly, he did that. The respondents declared the final result on 01.02.2009 through Notice No.759. As many as 23 candidates were selected under the OBC category. However, the roll number of the applicant did not figure therein.

3.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 4. 02.2019, stating that though 20 candidates were required to upload their e-dossiers, 23 candidates were appointed and his name did not figure therein. His grievance is that no order has been passed thereon. In this O.A. the applicant has challenged the final result.

4.

We heard Mr. Davinder N Grover, learned counsel for applicant at the stage of admission.

5.

The selection process involved various stages. The applicant cleared both the written examinations and was even required to upload his details through e-dossier. On consideration of the candidates, the respondents have declared the final result. The impugned order does not disclose the number of marks secured by the selected candidates. Obviously for this reason, the applicant is of the view that some irregularity has taken place in the selection process. We are of the view that the respondents can clarify the manner in which 23 candidates were selected and the circumstances under which the applicant was not selected.

6.

We, therefore, dispose of this O.A. requiring the 2nd respondent to pass an order on the representation dated 04.02.2019 submitted by the applicant, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.