Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manjeet Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 October, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 1519/2012 with OAs 1689/2012, 1449/2012, 1492/2012, 1496/2012,1521/2012, 1552/2012, 1666/2012, 1903/2012 and 2006/2012 ORDER RESERVED ON:08.10.2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON:30.10.2012 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER (A) 1. OA 1519/2012 1. Manjeet Singh, S/o Shri Ajeet Singh, R/o H. No. 97, Near Shiv Dairy, Vill & PO: Pooth Kalan, Delhi-110086. 2. Reena Narwal, D/o Sh. Ram Chander Narwal, R/o Main Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 3. Anju, D/o Shri Munni Lal, R/o H-617, Mangolpuri, Delhi-110083. 4. Renu Jindal, D/o Shri Gopi Ram Jindal, R/o 65/2, Moti Bagh, Street No. 9, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-110007. 5. Kavita Devi, D/o Shri Virender Rathee, R/o H. No. 180, Todarmal, Colony Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 6. Rekha Rani, D/o Shri Partap Singh, R/o H. No. 691, Saini Mohalla, Mangolpuri, Delhi-110041. 7. Bharti Narula, D/o Shri Baldev Raj Narula, R/o H. No. 1/5701, ST No. 18, Balbir Nagar Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi. 8. Poonam, D/o Shri Dalip Singh, R/o Village Jauri Khurd, PO Janaula, Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana). 9. Lalita, D/o Shri Ramesh Chand, R/o 313/1, DDA, LIG Flats, Pkt-D6, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 10. Reena, D/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh, R/o K-16, Som Bazar Road, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. 11. Mamta, D/o Shri Shiv Chandra Yadav, R/o A-1/348-A, Madhu Vihar, New Delhi-110059. 12. Jyoti Bala, D/o Shri Banarsi Lal, R/o Q. No. B-3, Police Colony, Bhajanpura, Delhi. 13. Deepali Gupta, D/o Shri Anil Kr. Gupta, R/o 194, Kalyan Vihar, Delhi-110009. 14. Anju, D/o Shri Richhpal Singh, R/o F-233, Gali No. 5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094. 15. Sunita Rani, D/o Richhpal Singh, R/o F-277, Gali No. 5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094. 16. Yogesh Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Kala, R/o H. No. 164, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-110053. 17. Malti Mala, D/o Shri Ram Kala, R/o H. No. 164, Dr. Ambedkar Basti, Ghonda, Delhi-110053. 18. Reenu, D/o Shri Banarsi Singh, R/o H. No. 351, Rajput Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi-110053. 19. Sandhya, D/o Shri Ram Kumar, R/o WZ 88D, Possangipur, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. 20. Meenakshi Yadav, D/o Shri Vijender Singh Yadav, R/o H. No. 109, Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 21. Rohini, D/o Shri Jeet Singh, R/o V&PO Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 22. Upasana, D/o Shri Dinesh Kumar, R/o V&PO Rawta, New Delhi-110073. 23. Lekhika Gaur, D/o Shri Mukesh Gaur, R/o Qt. No. 199, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi. 24. Tripti, D/o Shri Vijender Kr. Udar, R/o H. No. 179, VPO Bharthal, Dwarka, Sector 26, New Delhi. 25. Ashish Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Lal Chandra Yadav, R/o A-1/348, Madhu Vihar, New Delhi. 26. Deepali Dhankar, D/o Shri Joginder Singh, R/o A-33, Gemini Park, Nangli, Sakrawati, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 27. Annu Solanki, D/o Shri Phool Singh, R/o 139, Community Centre Area, Vill. Samaspur, PO Ujwa. 28. Anju, D/o Shri Mahender Singh, R/o VPO -Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 29. Pawan Kharb, S/o Shri Jaljeet Singh, R/o V.PO Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 30. Mukesh, S/o Shri Narender Singh, R/o H. No. 243, Near Mata Chowk, V.P.O. Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 31. Arpana Mary, D/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o H. No. 675, Near St. John School, Khara Khurad, Delhi-110082. 32. Neha Jain, D/o Shri Arun Jain, R/o IX/1847, Street No. 2, Kailash Nagar, Delhi-110031. 33. Shailja Sharma, D/o Sh. Rakesh Sharma, R/o H-123, New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. 34. Geeta D/o Shri Vikas Dabas, R/o Vill. Rasulpur, PO Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 35. Neelam, W/o Shri Vikky Dabas, Vill. Rasulpur, PO. Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 36. Minakshi, W/o Shri Harender Singh, R/o Vill Rasulpur, PO Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 37. Vasundhra Sharma, D/o Shri Hemant Sharma, R/o Vill Rasulpur, PO Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 38. Nitesh, S/o Shri Inder Pal Singha, R/o H. No. 41, V.P.O. Budhan Pur Majra Dabas, Delhi-81. 39. Parul Chhabra, D/o Shri Lalit Chhabra, R/o T-8, Venus Apartments, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 40. Pradeep Sherawat, S/o Shri Rambir Singh, R/o 562, Prem Bhawan, Bhooto Wali Gali, Nangloi, Delhi-110041. 41. Darshan, D/o Shri Rajbir, R/o RZ-30, Lokesh Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 42. Jyoti, D/o Shri Rajbir, R/o D-9, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi-110041. 43. Sonia, D/o Shri Inder Singh, R/o H. No. 491, V.P.O. Katewra, Delhi-110039. 44. Suman, D/o Shri Vijay Pal, R/o H. No. 308, Ward No. 4, (Banglewali), Delhi Gate, Jhajjar-124103. 45. Monika, D/o Satpal, R/o H. No. 730, Near Saini Chopal, Mundka, Delhi-110041. 46. Amita Grewal, D/o Sh. Bijender Singh, R/o H. No. 99, Nayak Mohalla, V.P.O. Bijwasan, New Delhi-110061. 47. Disha Jaiswal, D/o Shri Vijay Bahadur, R/o C-73, DDA Colony, New Jafrabad, Shahdara, Delhi. 48. Nitika Verma, D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o X/1561, Gali No. 8, Rajgarh Colony, Jheel, Delhi-110031. 49. Shikha Gupta, D/o Shri Rajesh Gupta, R/o 11/372, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 50. Arushi Sharma, D/o Shri Ravi Prakash Sharma, R/o 67, Ist Floor, Kishan Kunj Extn. Part 2, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 51. Kamini Pal, D/o Shri Raja Ram, R/o 77/150, Street No. 1, Mukesh Nagar, Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi. 52. Pankaj Sharma, S/o Shri Satbir Sharma, R/o RP-1192, Village Rangpuri, PO Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037. 53. Ashima, D/o Shri Naresh Kumar, R/o C-10/79, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053. 54. Dinesh Kumar, S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o H. No. 251, Mohalla Meerdan, V.P.O. Bakkarwala, New Delhi-110041. 55. Jyoti Mathur, D/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o H. No. 527, V.P.O. Karala, Delhi-110081. 56. Minti, D/o Shri Rajender Singh, R/o H. No. 1168, V.P.O. Dichaon Kalan, New Delhi-110043. 57. Ashish, S/o Shri Jeet Singh, R/o RZ-60, Ugersain Park, Dichaon Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 58. Anjali, D/o Shri Rajender Singh, R/o H. No. 1168, V.P.O. Dichaon Kalia, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 59. Shweta Choudhary, D/o Satish Chand, R/o H. No. 112, Street No. 9, Chanderlok, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110093. 60. Jyoti Meena, D/o Shri Lakhan Lal Meena, R/o R-170, Gali No. 19-A, Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062. 61. Ankit Budhwar, S/o Shri Kartar Singh, R/o 177/6, Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, New Delhi. 62. Vikas Chowdhary, S/o Shri Surinder Singh Choudhary, R/o F-128, Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085. 63. Rajneesh Singh, S/o Shri Rajvir Singh, R/o C-36/4, Street 1/3 A, CA Block, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053. 64. Sonam Sh. Ashok Kumar Maan, R/o D-97, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094. 65. Moni Tomar, D/o Shri Om Bir Singh Tomar, R/o F-22, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094. 66. Neelam Rani, D/o Late Shri Sharwan Singh, R/o B-18/5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi. 67. Annu Jain, Late Sh. Vimal Kumar Jain, R/o A-90/2, East Nathu Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-110093. 68. Monika Tomar, D/o Shri Sompal Singh Tomar, R/o C-1/55, Gali No. 19, Khajoori Khas, Delhi-110094. 69. Chetna D/o Shri Sompal Singh, R/o H-10, Street No. 2, Near Kalra Factory, East Kamal Vihar, Delhi-110094. 70. Pooja Jain, D/o Shri Vinesh Kumar Jain, R/o D-183/B, Gali No. 8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 71. Aysha D/o Shri Mohd. Rashisuddin Khan, R/o J3/124, Kishan Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 72. Sajida D/o Sh. Usman Khan, R/o H-225, Sunder Nagari, Delhi-110093. 73. Ankita Solanki, D/o Shri Umesh Kumar, R/o Village Shahbad, Mohammadpur, New Delhi-110061. 74. Shri Ashish Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Om Datt Sharma, R/o 100B, Gali No. 10, Balbir Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 75. Sarita Chhillar, W/o Shri Naveen Dabas, R/o H. No. 43, Salahpur Majra Dabas, Delhi-110091. 76. Pooja Shokeen, D/o Shri Yashpal Singh, R/o H. No. 398, Mangolpur Kalan in Marble Market, Delhi-110085. 77. Deepika, D/o Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o H. No. 507, Vill. Katewara, Delhi-110089. 78. Rajni Solanki, D/o Katter Singh, R/o 195, Village Matiala, PO Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. 79. Hamit Rathee, S/o Shri Bhagwan, R/o V&PO Bhaproda, Distt. Jhajjar-124503 Teh. Bahadurgarh, Near Shiv Mandir. 80. Asma Ara, D/o Sh. Mohabbat Ali, R/o 1536/16, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, New Mustafabad, Delhi-110094. 81. Manju Bala, D/o Shri Sukhbir Singh, R/o H. No. 27, VPO Kakrola, New Delhi-110078. 82. Priya Sharma, D/o Shri Balbir Sharma, R/o B-6/167, Sector 17, Rohini, New Delhi-110089. 83. Rahul Kunt, S/o Shri Dilbag Kunt, R/o Vidya Nagar, Shivaji Marg, Bhiwani-127021. 84. Divya Gupta, D/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o A-49, Ratan Park, Nangloi, New Delhi-110041. 85. Rashmi Rana, D/o Shri Surender Rana, R/o VPO Ghevra, Delhi-110081. 86. Priya Sharma, D/o Shri Ram Kumar Upadhyay, R/o U-152/3, Street No. 6, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi. 87. Sapna Devi, D/o Shri Chandeshwar Kumar, R/o H. No. 165, Karkardooma, Gali No. 13, Village, Delhi. 88. Himanshi Sharma, D/o Shri S.S. Sharma, R/o 25/56, Street No. 15, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 89. Kanika Jain, D/o Pushpa Jain, R/o B-67, Kanti Nagar Main, Delhi-110051. 90. Rakhi, D/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh, R/o RZ B-46, Anoop Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. 91. Jyoti Devi, D/o Shri Mukhtiar Singh, R/o H. No. 342A, V&PO Pawna, Delhi-110039. 92. Ashima D/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, R/o A-803, Sector 2, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 93. Palak D/o Sh. Kailash Prakash, R/o V-154/10, Gali No. 2, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi-110053. 94. Surbhi Gupta, D/o Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, R/o 346, A.G.C.R. Enclave, Delhi-110092. 95. Kunika Yadav, D/o Shri Jaswant Singh, R/o Village Pandwala Khurd, VPO Pandwala Kalan, New Delhi-110043. 96. Neha Yadav, D/o Sh. Om Prakash Yadav, R/o VPO Pandwala Khurd, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 97. Naina Yadav, D/o Surender Kumar, Vill Pandwala Khurd, PO Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 98. Vipin Yadav, S/o Shri Ishwar Singh Yadav, R/o Vill Pandwala Khurd, PO Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 99. Hem Chander, S/o Shri Bal Mukand, R/o Village Pandwala Khurd, PO Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 100. Keshav, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o Village Pandwala Khurd, PO Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 101. Pooja Kaushik, D/o Shri Jitender, R/o H. No. 68, Near (SBI), Gamri Road, Ghonda, Delhi-110053. 102. Arun Kumar, S/o Shri Satbir Singh, R/o VPO Paprawat, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 103. Mohit Kumar, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, VPO Paprawat, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 104. Neha Khanna, D/o Shri N.K. Khanna, R/o 25/22, Gali No. 16, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi-110032. 105. Shalini Singh, D/o Tejpal Singh, R/o 12/339, Kalyan Puri, Delhi-110091. Applicants. (By Advocate Shri Raman Duggal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Minto Road, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocates Shri Amit Anand for Respondents 1 and 2, Shri R.K. Jain for Respondent No. 3) 2. OA 1689/2012 1. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan, R/o H. No. 333-B, Auchandi Road, Bawana, Delhi-110039. 2. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Shri Jai Kishan, R/o H. No. 46-A, VPO Chandpur Dabas, Delhi-110081. 3. Preeti Gupta, D/o Shri Ram Kishan Gupta, R/o RZ-81, Gali No. 2, Maksudabad Colony, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 4. Suman Lata Kumari, W/o Surender Kumar, R/o V.P.O. Bajghera, Palam Vihar, Near Allahabad Bank, Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana). 5. Ritu, D/o Shri Om Naresh, R/o H. No. 70, V.P.O. Kakrola, New Delhi-110078. 6. Ghanshyam, S/o Shri Bir Singh, R/o H. No. 295, Firni Village Khampur, PO Alipur, Delhi-110036. 7. Sneh Lata, D/o Shri Hukam Singh, R/o H. No. 156, Harijan Basti, Gali No. 1, Vill. Khampur, Delhi-110036. 8. Ms. Poonam Kumari, D/o Shri Virendra, R/o D-155, Bhagirathi Vihar, Street No. 11, Delhi-110094. 9. Archana Gautam, D/o Shri Har Prashad, R/o Flat No. 208, Block C, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi-110089. 10. Nidhi, D/o Satvir Singh, R/o H. No. 213, Ishwar Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039. 11. Reena Kumari, D/o Shri Jeet Ram, R/o H. No. 511, V.P.O. Chandpur, Delhi-110081. 12. Shobha, D/o Hukam Singh, R/o H. No. 156, Harijan Basti, Gali No. 1, Village Khampur, Delhi-110036. 13. Preeti Jain, D/o Shri Pramod Kumar Jain, R/o B-203, Gali No. 11, Gulab Vatika, Loni, Ghaziabad. 14. Preeti Kharb, D/o Shri Surinder Singh, R/o Flat No. F-1, Chanakya Puri, Fire Station, Near China Embassy, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi-110021. 15. Savita, D/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Hooda, R/o V-70/71, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 16. Meenakshi, D/o Shri Jasbir Singh, R/o S-2, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 17. Arti, D/o Jasbir Singh, R/o S-2, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 18. Satbir Singh, S/o Shri Likhi Ram, R/o RZP 195, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, New Delhi. 19. Abhishek Grover, S/o Surendra Kumar, R/o 24, Gupta Park, Nazafgarh, New Delhi-110043. Applicants. (By Advocate Shri Raman Duggal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Minto Road, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocates Shri Amit Anand for Respondents 1 and 2, Shri R.K. Jain for Respondent No. 3) 3. O.A. 1449/2012 1. Vidhi Sangwan, D/o Sh. D.S. Sangwan, R/o RZH 716, Rajnagar II Street-15, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45. 2. Ranjit Mudgal, S/o Prakash Chander Sharma, R/o A-504, Gayitri Apartment, Plot No. 27, Sec. 10 Dwarka. 3. Sonam singh, D/o Sh. Maha Singh, R/o RZH 868-B, Rajnagar II, Near Canady Public School, Palam Colony, New Delhi. 4. Pooja Sharma, D/o Rajender Sharma, R/o RZ 26P/80A, Gali No. 39, Indra Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi. 5. Annu Gehlot, D/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gehlot, H. No. 158, Dwarka Sec. 16, Vill & PO Kakrola, New Delhi-78. 6. Rajni, D/o Sh. Rajbir Singh, R/o 410, near Dispensary Chattarpur, New Delhi-74. Applicants. (By Advcoate Shri U. Srivastava) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Minto Road, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocates Shri Amit Anand for Respondents 1 and 2, None for Respondent No.3) 4. OA 1492/2012 1. Vipin Gahlot, S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gehlot, H.No. 158, Dwarka Sec. 16, Vill. & PO Kakrola, New Delhi 78. 2. Sandeep, S/o Sh. Umed Singh, C/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gehlot, H.No.158, Dwarka Sec. 16, Vill. & PO Kakrola, New Delhi 78. 3. Brijesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Mehar Chand, Vill. Daulatabad, Nanukalan, Teh. Patodi, Gurgaon, Haryana. 4. Rashmi, D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, R/o Flat No. 114, Block 15, DGER Complex (Near DPS), Matiyala, Sector 3, Dwarka. .. Applicants (By Advocate Shri U. Srivastava) Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Minto Road, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocates Shri Amit Anand for Respondents 1 and 2, None for Respondent No.3) 5. OA 1496/2012 1. Ankur Biswas, Age 19 years, S/o Sh. Anand Biswas, R/o C-92, Vikas Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi 110078. 2. Rajesh Kumar, Age 20 years, S/o Sh. Sukhdev Prasad, R/o RZD-1/192, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi-110045. 3. Ms. Poonam, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o H.No.6, Gali No.1, Darshil Mohalla, Bharthal, New Delhi-110077. 4. Ms. Sandhya Kumari, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. G.P. Yadav, R/o E-195, Phase-I, Shyam Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 5. Ms. Kavita Devi, Age 23 years, D/o Sh. Mushru Lal, R/o RZ-83-A, Virendra Market, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 6. Ms. Harsha Yadav, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Mukesh Yadav, R/o Kharkhari Nahar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 7. Ms. Nidhi Jain, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Naresh Chand Jain, R/o RZG-159, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077. 8. Ms. Deepa Rani, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Mahavir Singh, R/o RZN-1/34, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 9. Ms. Dimpi, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, R/o H.No.102, Kh. No.115, Alipur, Delhi-110036. 10. Ms. Kavita, Age 26 years, D/o Sh. Priya Singh, R/o 423, Village Mukhmelpur, Delhi-110036. 11. Ms. Kavita, Age 24 years, D/o Sh. Bijender, R/o H.No.1500, Alipur, Delhi-110036. 12. Ms. Asha, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Chander Boss, R/o H.No. 184, VPO Bhastha, New Delhi-110077. 13. Ms. Shalini, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Madan Lal, R/o H.No.698, V.P.O. Bijwasan, New Delhi-110061. 14. Ms. Reenu, Age 19 years, D/o Sh. Rampal Singh, R/o H.No. 85, VPO Bijwasan, New Delhi-110061. 15. Ms. Nancy Chauhan, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Satish Kumar, R/o E-12, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. 16. Ms. Pooja Rani, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Dharam Pal, R/o H.No.403/13, Darzi Wara, Sohna, Distt.-Gurgaon (HR). 17. Ms. Pritika, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Mool Chand, R/o B-54, Gulab Bagh, Nawada, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. 18. Mohar Pal Saini, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Choth Mal Saini, R/o Village Sitapur, Post Golaka Bas, Teh. Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan 301410. 19. Ms. Priyanka, Age 26 years, W/o Sh. Birender Godara, R/o VPO Bharthal, Dwarka, Sector-26, New Delhi. 20. Ms. Monika Vashist, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. S.L. Vashistha, R/o VPO Chhawla, Kangan Heri Road, Chhawala, New Delhi-110071. 21. Krishan Gopal, Age 23 years, S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Singh, R/o VPO Hiram Kudna, New Delhi-41. 22. Sh. Anil Kumar, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Singh, R/o RZ-11/275, Gitanjali Park, West Sagarpur Nagar, New Delhi-110046. 23. Sh. Amit Goel, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Nand Kishor Goel, R/o 490, Arya Samaj Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. 24. Ms. Mamta Sharma, Age 25 years, D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar, R/o RZ-14, Jain Colony, Part-III, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 25. Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, R/o RZ-14, Jain Colony, Part-III, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 26. Mrs. Rajni Rohilla, Age 30 years, W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar, R/o RZ-41, B-Block Extension, Maksudabad Colony, New Delhi-110043. 27. Ms. Manju Rani, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Jai Bhagvan, R/o VPO Bharthal, New Delhi-110077. 28. Ms. Suman, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Suraj Singh, R/o Village Bharthal, Post Office Dwarka, Sector-26, New Delhi-110077. 29. Ms. Mamta, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Madan Lal Swami, R/o 1057A, W.No.8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. 30. Ms. Manju Rana, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Mahabir Rana, R/o VPO Gheura, Near Main Narela Road, Delhi-110081. 31. Ms. Rashmi, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Megh Singh, R/o F-69, Adhyapak Nagar, New Delhi-110041. 32. Ms. Suman, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Krishan, R/o H.No.514C, Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041. 33. Ms. Sushma, Age 25 years, D/o Sh. Ram Chander, R/o H.No.622, Qutabgarh, Delhi-110039. 34. Ms. Anita Yadav, Age 22 years, D/o Sh. Rajdev Yadav, R/o B-383-G-18, Agar Nagar, Part-III, Kirari Road, Delhi-110086. 35. Ms. Babita, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, R/o H.No.461, Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041. 36. Ms. Jyoti, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Surya Prakash, R/o H.No. 435/11, VPO Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041. 37. Ms. Manju, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Dharamveer, R/o 461-A, Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041. 38. Ms. Kusum, Age 19 years, D/o Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma, R/o H.No. 435/11, VPO Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041. 39. Ms. Neha Sharma, Age 23 years, D/o Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma, R/o C-236, Pole No.67, Near Badi Chaupal, Mohalla Kurat, VPO Chhawla, Delhi-110071. 40. Sh. Amit Kumar, Age about 25 years, S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Kharb, R/o H.No.36, Madangiri Village, Near Chaupal, New Delhi-62. .. Applicants (By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta) Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. 3. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariate, New Delhi. .. Respondents. (By Advocate Ms. Harvinder Oberoi) 6. O.A. 1521/2012 1. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Mehar Singh, R/o VPO Juan Sonepat, Haryana. 2. Suresh Kumar, Age 24 years, S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, R/o VPO Juan Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. 3. Ashish, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Sant Lal, R/o 536, Gali Brahamna, Bawana, Delhi. 4. Pradeep Maan, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Umed Singh, R/o H. No. 278, Khera Khurd, Delhi-110082. 5. Hardeep, Age 20 years, S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, R/o VPO Goila Kalan, Tehsil-Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. 6. Parmeet Rana, Age 19 years, S/o Sh. Vir Singh Rana, R/o H. No. 426, Mugeshpur, PO Qutubgarh, Garhi Road, Delhi-110031. 7. Shamveer, Age 20 years, S/o Sh. Jogender Singh, R/o H. No. 786/1, Jatwara, Sonepat, Haryana. 8. Ms. Sunny, Age 23 years, D/o Sh. Satbir Singh, R/o H. No. 7, Gali No. 2, Darshil Mohalla, Bharthal, New Delhi-110077. 9. Ms. Manju Rana, Age 31 years, D/o Sh. Raj Singh, R/o H. No. 74, Main Lambi Gali, Village Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi. 10. Ms. Sarita Rana, Age 25 years, D/o Sh. Raj Singh, R/o H. No. 74, Main Lambi Gali, Village Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi. 11. Ms. Preeti Dahiya, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Dayanand Dahiya, R/o B-17, Kewal Park, (Near Gaushala), Azadpur, Delhi-110033. 12. Ms. Rajni, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Dharampal Singh, R/o RZ-F100/32, Street No. 41A, Sadh Nagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045. 13. Ms. Manjit, Age 23 years, D/o Sh. Rup Lal, R/o RZF 250A, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, Near Sudhir Ki Chakki, New Delhi-110077. (By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta) Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Players Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032. 3. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariate, New Delhi. .. Respondents. (None for respondents) 7. OA 1552/2012 1. Rajni, Age 24 years, D/o Sh. Mool Chand, R/o 692/30, Vikas Nagar, Gali No.01, Kakroi Road, Sonipat 131001. 2. Geeta Sulaniya, Age 26 years, D/o Sh. Santosh Kumar, R/o 4/2314C, Street No.5, Bihari Colony, Shahdara. 3. Shabnam Rani, Age 22 years, D/o Sh. Waheed Khan, R/o D-82, Gali No.9B, Mohanpuri, Maujpur, Delhi-110053. 4. Renu Bala, Age 24 years, D/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, R/o VPO Mehrana (Haryana). 5. Ashish Kumar Gupta, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Amar Nath Gupta, R/o Janta Adarsh Andh Vidyalaya, Type-IV, Sector-3, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110049. .. Applicants (By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta) Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Players Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032. 3. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariate, New Delhi. .. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Amit Anand) 8. OA 1666/2012 1. Nisha, Age 28 years, D/o Sh. Anil Kumar, R/o H.No.206, Village Nawada, New Delhi 110059. 2. Suman, Age 25 years, D/o Sh. Ram Mehar Singh, R/o VPO Juan Distt., Sonepat, Haryana-131024. 3. Priyanka, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Bali Ram Singh, R/o RZ-35H/2A, Gali No.5, Raj Nagar-I. 4. Bhawana, Age 19 years, D/o Sh. Hotilal, R/o WZ-38, Mohalla Chhotilal, Palam Village, New Delhi-110045. 5. Sheetal, Age 20 years, D/o Sh. Daya Chand, R/o 2/31, Old Prem Nagar, New Delhi-110003. 6. Trishila Sharma, Age 22 years, D/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, R/o H.No.216, VPO Badli, Delhi-110042. 7. Jyoti Saini, Age 21 years, D/o Sh. Gulab Singh Saini, R/o A-284, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. 8. Nasreen Jahan, Age 25 years, D/o Mohd. Yameen Khan, R/o 4/2314, Street No.5, Behari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 9. Kavita, Age 28 years, D/o Sh. Prakash Chand. R/o Kheri Mangjat, Distt. Sonepat (HR). 10. Jitender Pal, Age 22 years, S/o Sh. Ram Yash Pal, R/o village Nagpura, Post Tikadevri, Distt. Ballia (UP). 11. Mahender Singh Meena, Age 21 years, S/o Sh. Mintu Lal Meena, R/o VPO Narayanpur, Taiwara, Tehsil Ganorpur City, Distt. Sawai Maduopur (Raj.). 12. Kusum Lata, Age 24 years, D/o Sh. Satya Pal, R/o 1642A/1, Todermal Colony, Thana Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. Applicants. (By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Players Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032. 3. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariate, New Delhi. .. Respondents. (By Advocate Ms. Harvinder Oberoi) 9. OA 1903/2012 1. Sourabh Arora, S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Arora, R/o 402/1E, Gali No. 4, Shastri Marg, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 2. Ruchika Jain, D/o Sh. Sagar Chand Jain, R/o 2603, Lambi Gali, Punjabi Bast, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007. 3. Swati Kadian, D/o Sh. Rakesh Kadian, R/o C-51, Ayudh Vihar, Plot No. 3, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078. Applicants. (By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Players Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032. 3. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Mrs. Alka Sharma) 10. OA 2006/2012 1. Pooja Rani, D/o Sh. Brij Mohan, R/o H. No. 2/334, Line Par, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (HR). 2. Suman Lata, D/o Sh. Rajender Singh, R/o VPO Patwar, Tehsil Narnand, Distt. Hisar (HR). 3. Soniya, D/o Sh. Satish Kumar, R/o VPO Dehkora, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (HR). 4. Kiran Arya, D/o Sh. Raj Kumar, R/o C-1/6, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 5. Usha, D/o Sh. Satish, R/o H. No. 75, PO Rani Khera, Village Madanpur Dabas, Delhi-110081. 6. Seema, D/o Satya Narayan, R/o H. No. 119, VPO Rani Khera, Delhi-110081. 7. Namita Goel, D/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar Goel, R/o H. No. 473, 13/1, Sayad Wali Gali, Village Azadpur, Delhi-110033. 8. Shaily, D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Saini, R/o H. No. 23, Mandir Wali Gali, Azadpur, Delhi-110033. 9. Manisha Dabas, D/o Sh. Anup Singh Dabas, R/o H. No. 160, Mubarak Pur Dabas, Delhi-110086. 10. Sonia, D/o Rohtas Singh, R/o H. No. 54, Village Ranhoula, PO Nangloi, New Delhi-110041. 11. Rekha, D/o Sh. Rajpal, R/o H. No. 54, Village Bakar Garh, PO Ujwa, New Delhi-110073. 12. Ravi Kant, D/o Dhani Ram, R/o H. No. 157, Village Tigipur, PO Baktawar Pur, Delhi-110036. 13. Pramod Kumar, D/o Sh. Bal Kishan, R/o H. No. 3D, Azad Nagar, Near Kaccha Phatak, Panipat (Haryana). 14. Suman Rohilla, D/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Rohilla, R/o H. No. 3D, Azad Nagar, Near Kaccha Phatak, Panipat (Haryana). 15. Manisha Kumari, D/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Prasad, R/o WZ-120C, Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028. Applicants. (By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Players Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032. 3. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Amit Anand) O R D E R
Shri G. George Paracken:
The issue raised in all these Original Applications is identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in OA 1519/2012 have been considered in this order.
2. The respondent-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (`DSSSB for short) has notified Annexure A-2 Advertisement No. 004/2009 in the edition of the Employment News of 26.12.2009 to 05.01.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi/autonomous bodies/local bodies with different post codes. The applicants in all these cases were candidates for the posts of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD for short) with Post Code No. 70/09. According to the said advertisement, the opening date and the closing date for receipt of applications were 29.12.2009 and 15.01.2010 respectively. The number of vacancies advertised were 4500 (UR-1900, OBC-1044, SC-766, ST-790). The essential qualification prescribed was Sr. Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board, two years diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed. from recognized institutions or its equivalent and pass in Hindi as a subject at secondary level. The age limit was 20-27 years relaxable for SC/ST/OBC/PH categories. One of the eligibility conditions was that the stipulated educational qualifications, age, experience, etc. shall be determined as on the closing date of receipt of applications. The aforesaid eligibility condition mentioned in advertisement was also in terms of the Recruitment Regulations for the post of Teacher (Primary), MCD (2007) notified on 13.07.2007.
3. Subsequently, the respondent-DSSSB has issued Annexure A-4 Notice vide Corrigendum dated 20.02.2010 to the Advertisement No. 004/2009 reducing the prescribed educational qualification of Sr. Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board to 45% marks for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD and Assistant Teacher (Primary) in Govt. of NCT. Again, the DSSSB issued the Annexure A-5 Addendum dated 18.03.2010 to the Advertisement No. 04/2009 increasing the number of posts of Teacher (Primary) [Post Code 70/09] from 4500 to 6500. However, it has been stated in the said Addendum that the crucial date for determining the age and obtaining the requisite qualifications, etc. will remain unchanged as 15.01.2010. However, the candidates who have not applied earlier and wished to apply could do so by 30th March, 2010.
4. Later on, pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal in OA 121/2010 and OA 151/2010, the user department has superseded the aforesaid Recruitment Regulations, 2007 notified on 13.07.2007 by the Annexure A-7 Notification dated 08.09.2011 known as the Recruitment Regulations for the post of Teacher (Primary), MCD, 2011. According to the said Regulations, the age limit for direct recruitment is 30 years relaxable for Government servants upto five years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government and as per the Note incorporated in the said Regulations, the crucial date for determining the age limit is the closing date for receipt of applications from the candidates. The classification of posts has also been upgraded to Group `B category. As a result, the DSSSB has issued the Annexure A-8 notice dated 13.09.2011 making certain amendments in the Advertisement No. 004/2009 and its addendum pertaining to the said posts notified under Post Code 70/09 and 71/09. As a result, all the posts of Assistant Teacher in GNCTD and Teacher (Primary) in MCD have been re-classified as Group `B Non Gazetted instead of Group `C Non Gazetted. The age limit for post code 70/09 and 71/09 has been increased from 20-27 years to 30 years. The essential qualifications have also undergone changes, making pass in English as a compulsory subject at Secondary or Sr. Secondary Level. Even though the number of vacancies under Post Code No. 70/09 remained same as 6500, their distribution among the various categories have undergone a change. Besides, the prospective eligible candidates also could apply for the said posts in the prescribed form upto 17.10.2011 but the eligibility of the candidates with regard to their educational qualifications, age, experience shall continue to be determined as on 15.01.2010 i.e. the closing date of receipt of applications as invited originally vide Advertisement No. 004/2009.
5. A number of applicants have challenged the aforesaid Notice dated 13.09.2011 before this Tribunal in OA 3663/2011 and connected cases Preeti Balayan Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. This Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the issue involved in the matter allowed all those O.As by a common order pronounced on 30.03.2012 as under:
33. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow these O.As. Resultantly, we declare that the impugned notice dated 13.09.2011 fixing 15.01.2010 for determination of the eligibility of the candidates with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc. is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside to that extent. Further, the respondents shall treat the closing date for receipt of applications of the applicants in terms of the impugned notice dated 13.09.2011 i.e. 17.10.2011 based on the Recruitment Regulations, 2011 as crucial date for determining the eligibility of the applicants with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc. as well. The interim direction passed in these cases directing the respondents to accept the applications of the applicants provisionally and subject to their fulfilling all other eligibility conditions is made absolute. The respondents are also directed to proceed with selection process to the post of Teacher Primary (Post Code No. 70/09) and Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the MCD and the Directorate of Education respectively in terms of the aforesaid directions and finalize it at the earliest. No costs.
6. According to the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Raman Duggal, the respondents, in violation of the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal dated 30.03.2012 issued the impugned Notification dated 14.04.2012 announcing the dates of examination for Post Codes 71/09, 70/09, 59/11, etc. As regards the Post Code No. 70/09 is concerned, the examination was proposed to be held on 24.06.2012, 01.07.2012 and 08.07.2012. His contention is that once the notice dated 13.09.2011 was quashed and set aside, it has attained the character of an order in rem and the respondents should have cancelled it by an explicit order and issued fresh Notification inviting fresh applications. The applicants have, therefore, filed these O.As seeking the following reliefs and interim reliefs (sought by the applicants in OA 1519/2012):
8. Reliefs:
pass any appropriate order or direction thereby holding and declaring the date of 14th April 2012 for conducting examination for the Post Code 70/09 without inviting applications from fresh candidates as per Recruitment Regulations, 2011 is mindless, unlawful and unconstitutional.
To issue appropriate order or direction thereby setting aside the impugned Notification dated 14th April, 2012 for holding examination for Post Code 70/09.
To issue appropriate order or direction thereby directing the respondents to issue fresh advertisement for inviting the applications as per Recruitment Regulations, 2011 for Post Code 70/09 and fixing the crucial date for determining the age qualification etc. in the Advertisement as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules of 2011.
To issue appropriate orders or directions thereby directing the respondents to issue a corrigendum for the Post Code 70/09 for inviting the fresh applications.
Or alternatively to issue appropriate orders or directions setting aside the Advertisement No. 4/09 for Post Code 70/09.
Issue appropriate orders or directions for calling of the records of the case files in the above matter.
Pass any other or further order as this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Costs.
9. Interim Reliefs:
a) Meanwhile stay the operation of the Selection Process as stipulated in the impugned Notification for holding examination pursuant to the Advertisement No. 4/07 for the Post Code 70/09 initiated by respondent no. 2 or alternatively to pass suitable directions to the respondent to issue corrigendum thereby fixing fresh date of receipt of the application for determining the age limit and educational qualifications for the Post Code 70/09 as per R.R. of 2011.
b) Alternatively to pass ad interim orders thereby directing the respondents to accept the Applicants application for Post Code 70/09 and to issue Admit Card and permit them to participate/appear in the examinations.
c) Meanwhile direct the respondents to issue admit card to the applicants and allow them to appear in the written examination.
d) Meanwhile direct the respondents to allow/treat the applicants as candidate for recruitment of Teacher (Primary) by determining the age criteria and educational qualification as on 17th October, 2011 instead of 15th January, 2010 as prescribed in Advertisement No. 4/09 for the recruitment of Teacher (Primary).
e) Pass any order or direction which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. When OA 1519/2012 was initially heard along with OA 1689/2012 for admission as well as for grant of interim relief on 21.05.2012, this Tribunal, after considering the back ground of the case and the subsequent developments, declined to grant the aforesaid interim relief sought by the applicants by a detailed order dated 24.05.2012. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
4. The brief background of the case is that the respondent-DSSSB issued Advertisement No. 004/2009 through the newspapers on 11.12.2009 and in the Employment News on 26.12.2009 inviting applications for 4500 vacant posts of Teacher (Primary) (Post Code 70/09) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD for short) and for 520 vacant posts of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Post Code 71/09) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT of Delhi for short) with the opening and closing dates for receipt of applications as 29.12.2009 and 15.01.2010, respectively. The latter date was the crucial date for determining the prescribed age and the qualifications also.
5. In response to the aforesaid advertisement, the DSSSB received 55,486 applications under post code No. 70/2009 and 18,490 applications under post code No. 71/2009. Thereafter, the examination was scheduled for two days on 16.5.2010 and 23.5.2010. Later on, this Tribunal, vide its order dated 03.5.2010 in OA.1101/2010, stayed the examination scheduled to be held on 10.04.2010 and 11.04.2010 for the posts of Nurse on the ground that a common merit list cannot be prepared on the basis of two different sets of question papers for the same posts. In view of the said stay order, the DSSSB on their own re-scheduled all similar examinations including those under post code No. 70/2009 and 71/2009 notified vide advertisement No. 004/2009. In the meanwhile, some of the prospective candidates raised the dispute regarding the age limit prescribed for the aforesaid recruitment stating that after the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the post of Primary Teacher has been classified as Group `B and the maximum age limit for appointment on direct recruitment has been enhanced to 30 years, as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, instead of the existing classification as Group `C and the maximum age limit as 27 years, as published in the advertisement. As a result, the respondents-Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the MCD had to carry out necessary amendments in the relevant recruitment rules and the MCD notified the amended Recruitment Rules on 06.09.2011 in supersession of its earlier Notification of 2007 issued on 13.07.2007 reclassifying the post of Teacher (Primary) and increasing the age limit for recruitment to the said post to 30 years and the crucial date for determining the age limit, educational qualifications, etc. as the closing date for receipt of applications from candidates.
6. Subsequently, the DSSSB issued Corrigendum to the aforesaid Advertisement No. 004/2009 carrying out the changes in the educational qualifications and the age limit. Meanwhile, additional 2000 vacancies were reported increasing the number of vacancies from 4500 to 6500. Therefore, the DSSSB has issued an Addendum to the aforesaid advertisement notifying additional vacancies. By the said corrigendum and the addendum, the DSSSB has stated that the candidates who could not apply earlier, could do so between 06.09.2011 and 17.10.2011. In other words, the crucial date for receipt of the applications alone was extended upto 17.10.2011. However, the date for determining the eligibility remained the same as 15.01.2010 as notified in the Advertisement No. 004/2009. The candidates who have freshly applied for the aforesaid posts have challenged the Advertisement No. 004/2009 to the extent that the crucial date for determining the age and obtaining the requisite qualification remained as 15.01.2010. Their contention was that the aforesaid date should also have been extended upto 17.10.2011 based on the provisions contained in the Recruitment Regulations, 2011. This Tribunal found merit in their and allowed OA 3663/2011 and connected cases on 30.03.2012 and its operative part is as under:
33. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow these O.As. Resultantly, we declare that the impugned notice dated 13.09.2011 fixing 15.01.2010 for determination of the eligibility of the candidates with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc. is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside to that extent. Further, the respondents shall treat the closing date for receipt of applications of the applicants in terms of the impugned notice dated 13.09.2011 i.e. 17.10.2011 based on the Recruitment Regulations, 2011 as crucial date for determining the eligibility of the applicants with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc. as well. The interim direction passed in these cases directing the respondents to accept the applications of the applicants provisionally and subject to their fulfilling all other eligibility conditions is made absolute. The respondents are also directed to proceed with selection process to the post of Teacher Primary (Post Code No. 70/09) and Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the MCD and the Directorate of Education respectively in terms of the aforesaid directions and finalize it at the earliest. No costs.
7. Thereafter, the respondent DSSSB vide Annexure A-1 Advertisement dated 14.04.2010 decided to hold the examination on 24.06.2012, 01.07.2012 and 08.07.2012 for the post code 70/2009.
8. The applicants in the present O.As are those who want to apply for the aforesaid posts even after 17.10.2011. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Raman Duggal is that since the notice dated 13.11.2011 fixing 15.01.2010 for determination of eligibility of the candidates with regard to the educational qualifications, age, etc. has been quashed and set aside, it has become non-existent order and, therefore, the respondents are required to issue a fresh advertisement notifying applications from all eligible candidates and fixing fresh closing date which should also be the crucial date for determination of the age, educational qualification, etc. as per the Recruitment Regulations of 2011. They have sought a direction from this Tribunal to the Respondent-DSSSB to declare their decision to hold the examination on the aforesaid dates as unconstitutional. They have also sought a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh advertisement for inviting the applications as per the Recruitment Regulations, 2011 for the post code 70/2009 and also another date as closing date for receipt of the applications and fix the crucial date for determining the age, qualifications, etc. in the advertisement as stipulated in the Recruitment Regulations, 2011. They have also sought an interim relief to stay the operation of the selection process as stipulated in the aforesaid Notification or alternatively to pass suitable directions to issue corrigendum thereby fixing fresh date of receipt of the application for determining the age limit and educational qualifications for the post code No. 70/2009 as per the Recruitment Rules, 2011. As an alternative, they have also sought an interim relief directing the respondents to accept the applications from the applicants for the aforesaid post and issue admit card and also permit them to participate/appear in the examinations.
9. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Raman Duggal has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990 (3) SCC 655) wherein it has been held that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. Further, he has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shri Kihota Hollohon Vs. Mr. Zachilhu and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 412) wherein it has been held that The purpose of interlocutory orders is to preserve in status quo the rights of the parties, so that, the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt acts by one side or the other during its pendency. Further, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Ors. (2006 (2) SCC 482) wherein it has been held that Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constiution. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is the one passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahbad and Anr. (2007 (3) SCC 720) wherein it has been held that it is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the final order in the judgment, which forms a precedent. Lastly, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2008 (3) SCC 724), according to which, once the rule has been struck down the effect would be that it never stood in the statute book.
10. Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DSSSB and Shri R.K. Jain appearing on behalf of the respondent MCD have argued that the scope of the order of this Tribunal in OA 3663/2011 and connected cases (supra) was limited to the extent of extending the crucial date for determining the eligibility of the applicants with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc, from 15.01.2010 to 17.10.2011 and it has been specifically stated so in the said order itself. They have also submitted that there is a basic difference between the applicants in the aforesaid O.As and those in the present O.As. The applicants in those O.As were those candidates who have already applied for the said posts before the extended date of 17.10.2011 whereas the applicants herein are the candidates who have never applied for those posts. Therefore, according to them, the order of this Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment cannot be a ground for the applicants herein to seek quashing of the Advertisement itself and for a fresh Advertisement again, giving opportunity to desirous candidates in addition to the applicants who have already made their applications and waiting for the examination to be held in June, 2012.
11. Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MCD has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in LPA 562/2011 DSSSB & Anr. Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya & Ors. which itself has placed reliance on its earlier judgment dated 31.10.2011 Narayan Lal Meena Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi wherein it has been held that sanctity of the cut off date qua eligibility qualification and have on a conspectus of the case law, need to reiterate which is not felt, held that eligibility has to be determined as on the cut off date prescribed and no relaxation can be granted that the applicants cannot take any advantage of the mistake.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Raman Duggal, the learned counsel for the respondent DSSSB Shri Amit Anand and the learned counsel for the respondent MCD Shri R.K. Jain. As submitted by the applicants themselves, the original Advertisement No. 004/2009 for recruitment of 4500 posts of Teacher (Primary) in MCD was issued way back in December, 2009 with opening and closing dates of receipt of applications as 29.12.2009 and 15.01.2010 respectively. Since the examination was scheduled for different dates based on different sets of questions and there was an order of this Tribunal dated 03.05.2010 in OA 1101/2010 holding that in such situation common merit list cannot be prepared. The respondents themselves have re-scheduled all the civil examinations including those under the post code No. 70/2009 notified by Advertisement No. 004/2009. Again, based on the order of this Tribunal on 20.06.2010 in OA 121/2010 and OA 151/2010, the respondents were again forced to postpone the examination in order to carry out the necessary amendment in the Recruitment Rules and finally the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Primary Teacher were notified on 06.09.2011. By the said Regulations, the post of Teacher (Primary) has been reclassified as Group `B post and the age limit has been increased from 27 to 30 years. The crucial date for determining the age limit and the educational qualification has also been fixed as the closing date for receipt of the applications from the candidates and accordingly the respondent-DSSSB has issued a corrigendum to the aforesaid Advertisement No. 004/2009. Again, because of the elapse of time between the original date of Advertisement No. 004/2009 and the corrigendum changing the educational qualification for the post, 2000 more vacancies have occurred. Therefore, the respondent-DSSSB was again forced to issue Annexure A-6 Addendum to its Advertisement No. 004/2009 increasing the number of vacancies to 6500 in order to enable the candidates to apply for the new posts. The said respondent has extended the closing date for receipt of the application upto 17.10.2011 but they have still continued with the crucial date for determination of the age and educational qualification as 15.01.2010. This Tribunal found the said action on the part of the respondent-DSSSB as violative of the provisions contained in the Recruitment Regulations, 2011 and finally allowed all the applicants who applied for the posts till 17.10.2011 to be considered for the post provided they have fulfilled the required qualifications as on that date in consonance with the provisions contained in the aforesaid Recruitment Rules. This Tribunal has passed the aforesaid order in OA 3663/2011 and connected cases on 30.03.2012. Thereafter, the respondent DSSSB has gone ahead with the issuing of the Annexure A-1 impugned Notification re-scheduling the examination in the aforesaid post on 24.06.2012, 01.07.2010 and 08.07.2012.
13. The contention of the applicants counsel is that once the notice dated 13.09.2011 fixing 15.01.2010 for determination of the eligible candidates with regard to the educational qualification has been declared as unconstitutional and quashed and set aside the same, the entire recruitment process has to be abandoned and fresh notification for recruitment of Teacher (Primary) has to be undertaken. In our considered view, the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is totally misplaced. It is to be understood clearly that the Advertisement No. 004/2009 issued on 26.12.2009 has not been set aside by this Tribunal. What this Tribunal has said is that the crucial date for determination of the age and the educational qualification for the candidates shall be in consonance with the Recruitment Rules. Since the respondent DSSSB has continued to keep the crucial date for receipt of the applications for determination of the age and educational qualifications as 15.01.2010 in terms of the aforesaid Advertisement, even after the recruitment rules have been framed, we quashed and set aside the same to that extent and directed the respondents to keep the crucial date for determining the age and qualifications as 17.10.2011 in terms of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules. The respondents have followed those orders and have re-scheduled the examination and issued the impugned Annexure A-1 notification. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the applicants in this case are not similarly placed as the applicants in the aforesaid O.A. 3663/2010 and connected cases. In the present cases, the applicants are the ones who have never applied for the aforesaid posts. On the other hand, the applicants in the aforesaid O.A and connected cases were the candidates who have applied for the above posts within the extended period of time and they have been denied admission only on the ground that they were not qualified educationally and age-wise as on the closing date of the receipt of the applications. Moreover, in our considered view, the recruitment process cannot go indefinitely on the ground that some more candidates would become eligible during the course of time. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to grant the interim reliefs sought by the applicants in these cases and we reject them.
14. As already ordered, let both these cases be listed on 10.07.2012 before which date the parties should get the pleadings completed.
8. The applicants challenged the aforesaid interim order before the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.3405/2012 Manjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. The High Court, vide its order dated 06.06.2012, observed that since the examination schedule has been re-scheduled to October, 2012 and the exact dates are yet to be finalized and this Tribunal has already fixed the matter for hearing on 10.07.2012, there is no grave urgency for hearing the writ petition. The High Court has also expressed its hope that this Tribunal would hear the matter and dispose it of before the examinations are again notified to be held in October, 2012. Further, the High Court has held that if the petitioners are aggrieved by re-notification of the examinations without the substantive petition being disposed of by the Tribunal, it was open to them to approach the High Court again. However, it is understood that the DSSSB has not issued any fresh notification fixing the dates for holding the examinations.
9. The applicants have challenged this OA on the following grounds:
(i) Because the impugned notification is contrary to law and constitution.
(ii) Because the respondents have failed to appreciate that once the Honble Tribunal has quashed and set aside the crucial date of 15th January, 2010 as contained in the Advertisement No. 04/09 then the Respondents are under obligation to issue fresh Advertisement inviting applications as per Recruitment Regulations, 2011 for Post Code, 70/09 and thereafter hold examination of all eligible candidates. The Applicants are similarly placed as those candidates who have filed O.As before this Tribunal.
(iii) Because the Respondents have failed to appreciate that by holding examination in terms of the impugned notification shall deprive the Applicant of opportunity to compete in the examination for the post in question. The applicant, have vested right for consideration for appointment.
(iv) Because the respondents have failed to appreciate that the Applicants are similarly placed in all respects and manner as other candidates who will be competing in forthcoming examination and by not granting them opportunity to appear in the examination shall constitute a breach of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(v) Because the cut of date for the purposes of educational qualification and Age Limit of 15th January, 2010 is manifestly arbitrary, irrational, without application of mind and totally of the mark and depriviated in nature and thus unconstitutional.
(vi) Because the respondents failed to appreciate that by not following the mandate of crucial date s given in RRs of 2011 amounts to fraud on the Recruitment Regulations of 2011 and thereby vitiating the entire selection process.
(vii) Because the respondents failed to appreciate that giving opportunity to complete in examination to only those candidates who approached the Honble Tribunal and deprive the other eligible meritorious Candidates/Applicants who could not approach the Honble Tribunal on account of ignorance or financial constraints or overt representation in Notice dated 13th September, 2011 that cut off date is 15th Janaury, 2010 cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to compete in examination alongwith similarly situate candidates would result in isolation of doctrine of equality.
10. The learned counsel for the applicants Shri Raman Duggal, while arguing these cases, submitted that the respondents in their reply affidavit have not denied most of the submissions made by the applicants and, therefore, as per the law of pleadings, they should be treated as accepted. Further, his contention is that once the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the notice dated 13.09.2011, it has become non-existent. In this regard, he has relied upon the definition of the word quash in the Websters New Dictionary and Thesaurus and stated that it means to make avoid, annul or set aside (a law, decision etc.) In this regard, he has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras (AIR 1992 SC 1439) wherein it has been held as under:
Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as if stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. Further, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2008 (3) SCC 724) wherein it has been held as under:
Once the power of relaxation of eligibility criteria conferred on the State under Rule 296 has been struck down by the learned Single Judge and the same having been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained as the said Rule 296 has already been struck down. Once the rule has been struck down the effect would be that it (sic never) stood in the statute book.
11. The Respondent No.1, namely, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Respondent No.2, namely, the DSSSB have filed their common reply. Their counsel Shri Amit Anand has refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Raman Duggal that the order of this Tribunal in OA 3663/2011 and connected cases decided on 30.03.2012 has to be considered as an order in rem. He has also submitted that it is evident from the concluding paragraph of the said order that the notice dated 13.09.2011 fixing the date of 15.01.2010 for determination of the eligibility of the candidates with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc. was found to be arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and accordingly it was quashed and set aside to that extent only and nothing more. He has also stated that the direction of this Tribunal is to treat the closing date for receipt of applications in terms of the impugned notice dated 13.09.2011 i.e. 17.10.2011 based on the Recruitment Regulations, 2011 as crucial date for determining the eligibility of the applicants with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc. as well. In other words, the direction of this Tribunal was only to accept the applications of all the applicants who fulfil the eligibility conditions till the closing date of receipt of the applications and the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal.
12. Shri Amit Anand has also brought to our notice that the order of this Tribunal in Preeti Balayas case (supra) dated 30.03.2012 has been challenged before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) 3397/2012 and the High Court granted the following interim order on 30.05.2012:
In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, the order of the Tribunal will be modified only to the extent that those persons who were eligible on 15.01.2010 will also be allowed to take the examination. A public notice be given with regard to this. The appointments made in accordance with the interim directions would be subject to the final orders that may be passed in the writ petition.
13. The aforesaid interim order was again modified on 04.09.2012 and it reads as under:-
We have already passed an interim order dated 30.05.2012. Mr Waziri appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that he may be permitted to conduct the examination in terms of the interim order on the basis of the very same notification.
Since we have already given the interim directions which expand the number of people who would be eligible for consideration, we see no reason as to why the examination ought not to be conducted on the basis of the same notification subject to the directions given by us. This would mean that the number of applicants would be 120669 in respect of Post Code 70/-09 and 71/09. Applications received in respect of the cut-off date 15.01.2010 total to 73970 whereas additional applications received on the basis of revised recruitment rules with cut-off date of 17.10.2011 are 46699 in number. Examination be conducted at the earliest.
Re-notify on 01.02.2013.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent-MCD Shri R.K. Jain has adopted the argument of Shri Amit Anand, who is the learned counsel for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The crux of the argument of Sh. Raman Duggal on behalf of all the applicants in these OAs is that since this Tribunal has already quashed the notice dated 13.9.2011, it has became void and, therefore, cannot be operated. In our considered view, the said argument of Shri Duggal cannot be accepted as it is evident from this Tribunals Order dated 30.03.2012 in Preeti Balayas case (supra) that the notice dated 13.9.2011 has been quashed and set aside only to the very limited extent of fixing 15.01.2010 as the date for determination of the eligibility of the candidates with regard to their educational qualifications, age, etc. Rest of the instructions contained in the said notice has been untouched and they remain unchanged. Further, we have clarified that all candidates who became qualified on the closing date of receipt of applications i.e. 17.10.2011 shall be allowed to take part in the competitive examination and the applications submitted by them till that date are to be accepted. But the case of the applicants in these OAs is entirely different. They have never applied for the posts in terms of the notice dated 13.09.2011.
16. The aforesaid position has also been made clear in our interim order dated 24.05.2012 in these cases which has been extracted elsewhere in this order. In our considered view, the recruitment process cannot be postponed indefinitely. The basis of this Tribunal order dated 30.03.2012 is that when the Recruitment Rules say that the date for determination of eligibility of the candidates shall be the closing date for receipt of the applications, neither the user department nor the recruitment agency can prescribe another date.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in these cases and accordingly they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Jayati Chandra) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) `SRD