Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 21 July, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. NO.926 OF 2013
New Delhi, this the 21st day of July, 2014
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBR
AND
HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBR
.
RICHA GUPTA
D/o Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta,
R/o B-37 C.C.Colony,
Opp.R.P.Bagh, Delhi 110007 .Applicant
(In person)
Vrs.
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FE-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Dlhi 110092
2. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate, New Delhi 110002 . Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Pratima Gupta)
..
ORDER
Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:
a) An Order or direction directing the Respondents to process the dossiers/documents of the Post code 163/7 of librarian in the Directorate of education and sent the dossier of eligible candidates to the Directorate of education.
b) An Order, Direction directing the Respondent sent my dossier (Roll No.01712199) to the Directorate of the Education for appointment as I am an eligible candidate as per the selection Policy of the Respondent;
c) To award costs of this petition to me (the applicant).
d) To pass any further order (s) which this Honble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.
2. Brief facts of the applicants case run thus: Respondent No.1-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), vide Advertisement No.07/2007, published in Employment News 6-12 October 2007 (Annexure 2), invited applications for the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education. For appointment to the said post, the candidate was required to qualify first the Objective & Qualifying Test, i.e., Part I, and thereafter qualify the Descriptive Test, i.e., Part II. The opening date of receipt of the application forms was 16.10.2007 and the closing date of receipt of application forms was 29.10.2007.
2.1 The relevant part of the said advertisement with regard to number of vacancies category-wise, educational and other qualifications (Annexure 2) read as follows:
LIBRARIAN, GROUP B, POST CODE 163/07 NUMBER OF VACANCIES-39(UR-20, OBC-15, SC-03 & ST-01)(INCLUDING PH(OH)-01 AND VH(LV)-01) Essential qualifications (1) Degree from a recognized university or equivalent, (2) Bachelors degree or equivalent diploma in Library Science or a Recognized University/Institute or equivalent, (3) Experience of two years in a Library/Computerization of a Library or one year certificate in computer application from a recognized Institute or equivalent.
Pay Scale 5500-175-9000. Probation Period: 2 years. Age-Not exceeding 32 years (Relaxable for Government servants up to 5 years in accordance with instructions or orders issued by the Central Government). Relaxation in upper age limit available to SC/ST -05 years, PH-05 years, PH & SC/ST 10 years and PH & OBC-08 years.
The applicant, having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, applied for the post of Librarian and paid a fee of Rs.100/-2.2 Respondent No.1-DSSSB conducted a common recruitment examination for filling up of vacancies of Librarian under different departments of Government of NCT of Delhi, viz., Post Codes 17/07, 182/07, 030/08 & 163/07. Out of the said post Codes, the Post Codes 17/07 and 163/07 (Librarian) were for the Directorate of Education. The result of the said common recruitment examination was to be used for filling up vacant posts under different Post Codes. The applicant appeared in the Objective Qualifying Test, i.e., Part I on 18.01.2009 in the morning session and Part II (Descriptive) Main Examination in the afternoon session vide Roll No.01712199 for the Post Codes 17/07 and 163/7 (Librarian) for the Directorate of Education. She scored 91 out of 200 marks in the main examination and became eligible for selection, as the criterion for selection was 45% or more marks in the main examination.
2.3 Respondent No.1-DSSSB declared and processed the results for Post Codes 17/07, 182/07 and 030/08 of the common examination conducted on 18.1.2009, but did not process the result of Post Code 163/07. The applicant missed an appointment under Post Code 17/07 by a close margin, but had a fair chance of getting appointed under Post Code 163/07.
2.4 The Assistant Director of Education (E-IV), Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, vide letter dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure 13-A) requested the Secretary of respondent no.1-DSSSB to send the dossiers in respect of Post Codes 17/07 and 163/07, for 126 vacancies of Librarian (87 + 16 + 23) which were requisitioned in the year 2006-07 and the selection process for the same had been completed. The Secretary of respondent no.1-DSSSB was also requested by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, vide its letter dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure 13-B) to expedite the selection process for the 39 posts of Librarian and 16 more posts of Librarian, as requested, vide letter dated 11.2.2010 (ibid).
2.5 The applicant made representation dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure 6) to the Chairman and the Secretary of respondent no.1-DSSSB to process the result of Post Code 163/07. The applicants father received information, vide communication dated 16.4.2012 (Annexure 7) under the RTI Act, that the result processing of Post Code 163/07 was withheld on the request of the user Department, i.e., Directorate of Education.
2.6 Thereafter, the applicant made representations, dated 4.6.2012, to the Honble Lt. Governor of Delhi and His Excellency the President of India for appropriate relief.
2.7 As per the information received by the applicants father, vide letter dated 31.8.2012 [Annexure 1 (A & B )] from the respondent no.1-DSSSB, at the time of processing Part I result, the Directorate of Education, vide its letter dated 13.3.2009 had requested the DSSB to keep the selection process for Post Code 163/07 in abeyance and accordingly, the same was kept in abeyance with the approval of the competent authority.
2.8 Thereafter, the applicant made representation dated 10.9.2012 requesting the Chairperson and the Secretary of respondent no.1-DSSSB to take necessary action in the matter of processing of the result for the Post Code 163/07 before initiating the process of fresh selection for 105 posts of Librarian.
2.9 The applicant also made a representation dated 12.9.2012 to the Chairperson, National Commission for Women, New Delhi, in the matter. In response to her representation dated 12.9.2012, the Chairperson, National Commission for Women, vide letter dated 30.12.2012, advised the applicant to approach the appropriate court of law in the matter. Thereafter, the applicant submitted another representation to the Secretary of respondent no.1-DSSSB reiterating her request to look into the matter and intimating that if the result of the post Code 163/7 (Librarian) would not be processed, she shall be forced to approach this Tribunal.
2.10 While the matter stood thus, Advertisement No.01/2013 (Annexure 14) was published by the respondent no.1-DSSSB for recruitment to different posts including the post of Librarian (Post Code 02/13) in the Directorate of Education, fixing 20.03.2013 as the last date for receipt of applications.
2.11 In the above backdrop, the applicant has filed the present Original Application praying for the relief(s) referred to earlier.
3. In the Original Application, the applicant has urged the following grounds:
(i) When the Directorate of Education, vide its letters dated 11.2.2010 and 13.7.2010 (Annexure 13), requested the respondent no.1-DSSSB to complete the selection process for the Post Code 163/07 (Librarian) and to send the dossiers of the selected candidates, the said respondent no.1-DSSB ought to have finalized the said selection process.
(ii) Respondent no.1-DSSSB acted arbitrarily in cancelling the process of selection for the Post Code 163/07 and in issuing fresh advertisement No.01/2013 (Annexure 14).
(iii) The illegal and unconstitutional decision of the respondents has deprived the applicant of livelihood.
(iv) The applicant is suffering because of the inaction and lackadaisical attitude of the respondents.
(v) As the applicant has paid the recruitment fee of Rs.100/-, the respondent no.1-DSSSB should not have cancelled the selection process arbitrarily and without any justifiable reason.
4. In the counter reply, the respondents have stated that the respondent-1 DSSB had advertised 39 vacancies (UR-20, OBC-15, SC-03, ST-01) in the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education under Post Code 163/07, vide its advertisement No.07/2007. A common written examination for the Post Code 17/07 (Librarian in the Directorate of Education), Post Code 18/07 (Librarian in DTTE), Post Code 182/07 (Library Information Assistant in H&FW), Post Code 30/08 (Librarian in MAIDS) and Post Code 163/07 (Librarian in Directorate of Education) was conducted on 18.1.2009. Subsequently, the user Department, i.e., Directorate of Education, GNCTD, vide letter No.F.DE 4(9)(72)/E-IV/2006/9118 dated 13.3.2009, requested the DSSSB to keep in abeyance the selection process for anticipated 39 vacancies for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 (Post Code 163/07). Thereafter, the result processing of Post Code 163/07 was not taken up by the DSSB. Further, vide letter No.DE.4(9)/72/E-IV/06/6869 dated 25.9.2012, the Directorate of Education informed that the said 39 vacancies (UR-20, OBC-15, SC-03, ST-01) which were advertised under Post Code 163/07 and remained unfilled were included in a fresh requisition of 105 vacancies of Librarian. Subsequently, 89 vacancies (UR 52,OBC 37) in the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education, GNCTD were advertised vide Advertisement No.01/11 under Post Code 40/11. The advertisement no.01/11 containing Post Code 40/11 along with other Post Codes was later on scrapped by the Honble Court. Thereafter, the Directorate of Education again sent a fresh requisition vide letters No. F.DE 4(9)/(72)/Vol.IV/06/6811 dated 25.9.2012 and No. 7313 dated 12.10.2012, and subsequently 382 vacancies in the post of Librarian were advertised under Post Code 02/13 vide Advertisement No. 01/2013, by the respondent No.1-DSSSB. These included the 39 vacancies which were advertised under Post Code 163/07 and remained unfilled.
5. In the rejoinder reply, the applicant has stated that she had applied for Post Codes 17/07 and 163/07 and also appeared in the common examination conducted by the respondent no.1-DSSSB on 18.1.2009. The applicant has filed the copy of the merit list for the post of Librarian, Directorate of Education, Post Code 17/07, wherein her name finds place at sl.no.73, securing 91 marks. It is stated by the applicant that she was communicated the copy of the said merit list by the respondent no.1-DSSSB, vide its letter dated 14.11.2011, in compliance with the Central Information Commissions order dated 24.10.2011. It is further stated that the Directorate of Education directed the respondent no.1-DSSSB to keep the process of result of Post Code 163/7 in abeyance vide its letter dated 13.3.2009 to avoid confusion during selection process between the candidates of two Post Codes 17/07 and 163/7 simultaneously. But after the selection process of Post Code 17/07 was completed, the Directorate of Education wrote a letter on 13.7.2010, followed by a reminder on 6.12.2010, to the respondent no.1-DSSSB to send the dossiers for the Post Code 163/07. This fact was suppressed from the Tribunal to misguide and divert its attention. The Directorate of Education did not send the fresh requisition at its own accord, but the respondent no.1-DSSSB directed the Directorate of Education to send a fresh requisition for filling up the said 39 vacancies along with other vacancies.
6. The respondents have not filed further counter reply to the applicants rejoinder reply.
7. We have perused the pleadings and heard the applicant in person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. From the pleadings, the following admitted facts emerge:
(i) Pursuant to Advertisement No.07/2007, DSSSB-Respondent no.1 conducted a common written examination on 18.1.2009 for the Post Code 17/07 (Librarian in the Directorate of Education), Post Code 18/07 (Librarian in DTTE), Post Code 182/07 (Library Information Assistant in H&FW), Post Code 30/08 (Librarian in MAIDS) and Post Code 163/07 (Librarian in Directorate of Education).
(ii) As per the said advertisement, there were 39 vacancies in the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education (Post Code No.163/07) and the break-ups of the vacancies were UR 20, OBC 15, SC 03 and ST 1.
(iii) The applicant, who belongs to UR category, applied for the post of Librarian in Directorate of Education (Post Code 163/07).
(iv) As per the merit list for the post of Librarian, Directorate of Education (Post Code 17/07), which was produced by the applicants representative at the time of hearing, the applicants name appeared at sl.no.73, as she scored 91 out of 200 marks and was declared to have qualified in the examination as per the scheme of the examination.
(iv) While DSSSB-respondent no.1 was processing the selection for the post of Librarian in Directorate of Education, vide Post Code 17/07, the Directorate of Education, vide letter dated 13.3.2009, requested DSSSB-respondent no.1 to keep in abeyance the selection process for the 39 vacancies in the post of Librarian in Directorate of Education (Post Code 163/07) till the appointment process for 87 vacancies in the post of Librarian in Directorate of Education (Post Code 17/07) was completed.
(v) The Directorate of Education , vide letters dated 11.02.2010 and 13.07.2010, requested DSSSB-respondent no.1 to expedite the selection process in respect of Post Code 163/07 and send the dossiers of the selected candidates since the selection process in respect of Post Code 17/07 was then completed.
(vi) Instead of completing the selection process for the Post Code 163/07, DSSSB-respondent no.1, vide letters dated 26.4.2010 and 02.08.2010, informed the Directorate of Education that selection process was not initiated by DSSSB on the basis of the Directorate of Educations letter dated 13.3.2009. DSSSB-respondent no.1, vide said letters, also requested the Directorate of Education to send fresh requisition for initiation of selection process afresh.
(vii) The Directorate of Education sent requisition to DSSSB-respondent no.1 on 6.12.2010 for filling 105 posts of Librarian in the Directorate of Education.
(viii) DSSSB-respondent no.1, vide Advertisement No.01/2011, initiated selection process for various posts including the aforesaid 105 posts of Librarian in the Directorate of Education under Post Code 40/11.
(ix) The entire selection process, vide Advertisement No.01/2011 was scrapped by the Honble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 01.06.2012 passed in W.P. ( C ) No.3411 of 2012 (All India Confederation of the Blind v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others). The order dated 01.06.2012 (ibid) reads thus:
Today, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, except respondent No.8, makes a statement conceding that there has been an error in not properly identifying the posts reserved for the disabled as per the Notification dated 18.1.2007 and 15.3.2007. It is further stated that all these respondents shall send fresh requisition in accordance with the aforesaid notifications and request the DSSSB to issue fresh advertisement.
We appreciate this gesture on the part of these authorities who have realized their mistake and are ready to take remedial steps. We are of the opinion that in a case like this, when the advertisement No.01/2011 was not in accordance with law and no appointments have been made so far against this advertisement, the process already undergone is liable to be scrapped and fresh prosess should be initiated after appropriate requisition is made by these authorities to the DSSSB identifying the posts suitable for disabled persons in accordance with the notification dated 18.1.2007 and 15.3.2007.
As far as the respondent No.8 Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences is concerned, none has appeared despite service. We see no reason as to why the same position is followed by respondent No.8 also. We direct accordingly.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(ix) The Directorate of Education, vide letters dated 25.9.2012 and 12.10.2012, sent fresh requisition to DSSSB-respondent No.1 to initiate fresh selection process for filling up 382 vacancies in the post of Librarian, which included 39 vacancies of Librarian in the Directorate of Education (Post Code 163/07).
(x) DSSSB-respondent no.1 issued Advertisement No.01/2013 for various posts including the aforesaid 382 posts of Librarian in the Directorate of Education.
9. In view of the above admitted positions in the case, the DSSSB-respondent no.1, in our considered view, was not justified in asking the Directorate of Education to send fresh requisition for the 39 vacancies in the post of Librarian for which selection process was initiated vide Advertisement No.07/2007 (Post Code 163/07) and common examination was conducted by the DSSSB and selection process was kept in abeyance at the request of the Directorate of Education, vide letter dated 13.3.2009. The respondents have not indicated any reason as to why the DSSSB-respondent no.1 did not act upon the Directorate of Educations letters dated 11.2.2010 and 13.7.2010 to finalize the selection process and send the dossiers of the selected candidates. It was none of the functions of the DSSSB-respondent no.1 to ask the Directorate of Education to send fresh requisition for filling up the aforesaid 39 vacancies in the post of Librarian thereby reducing the entire exercise to a farce. In the absence of any reason, far less justifiable reason, the DSSSB-respondent No.1 should not have asked the user Department, i.e., the Directorate of Education to send fresh requisition for initiating selection process for the aforesaid 39 vacancies in the post of Librarian. We, therefore, find much force in the contention of the applicant that the DSSSB-respondent no.1 acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in not finalizing the selection process and sending the dossiers of the selected candidates in respect of the Post Code 163/07. When the action of the DSSSB-respondent no.1 is palpably arbitrary, the inclusion of the said 39 vacancies in the fresh requisitions sent by the Directorate of Education during 2010 and 2012 and the consequential Advertisement Nos.01/2011 and 01/2013 issued by the DSSSB-respondent No.1 cannot be held to have validated the illegal and arbitrary action of the DSSSB-respondent no.1 in not acting upon the Directorate of Educations letters dated 11.2.2010 and 13.7.2010(ibid).
10. The other aspect of the matter is that when the applicants name figured at sl.no.73 in the merit list by scoring 91 out of 200 marks in the examination, she was entitled to be considered for selection and appointment to the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education (Post Code No.163/07). The impugned actions of the DSSSB-respondent no.1 and the Directorate of Education adversely affected the said right of the applicant and similarly placed persons in the matter of consideration for selection and appointment to the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education (Post Code 163/07). The stand taken by the respondents that the result of the examination in respect of Post Code 163/07 was not processed is belied by the merit list prepared by the DSSSB-respondent no.1 for the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education (Post Code 17/07) which indicates that the applicant was placed at sl.no.73 securing 91 out of 200 marks in the common examination. The said stand of the respondents is also belied by the fact that the common written examination was conducted for the Post Codes 17/07, 18/07, 182/07, 30/08 and 163/07 and the answer sheets of all the candidates applying for the aforesaid Post Codes were duly evaluated by the DSSSB-respondent no.1. It was only on the request of the Directorate of Education that the DSSSB-respondent no.1 kept in abeyance the result processing in respect of Post Code 163/07. The DSSSB-respondent no.1 was supposed to prepare a select panel/merit list of the candidates applying for the Post Code 163/07 when the user Department, i.e., Directorate of Education, vide letters dated 11.2.2010 and 13.7.2010, requested the DSSSB-respondent no.1 to finalize the selection process and send the dossiers of the selected candidates. In view of this, the aforesaid plea of the respondents is untenable.
11. The law is well settled that even in an administrative action, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of fairness in action, as opposed to arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, must be held to be applicable. As the applicant acquired a fundamental right to be considered for appointment to the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education (Post Code 163/07) in view of her having qualified in the examination conducted by the DSSSB-respondent no.1, the same shall not be subjected to arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and irrational action of the respondents.
12. In the light of the above discussions, we hold and declare that the actions of the respondents in not finalizing the selection process for the 39 vacancies in the post of Librarian in the Directorate of Education (Post Code 163/07, Advertisement No.07/2007) and in initiating fresh selection process, vide Advertisement Nos.01/2011 and 01/2013, thus and thereby virtually annulling the earlier selection process without rhyme or reason, are arbitrary, unfair and irrational. As a consequence, we direct that the respondents shall finalize the selection process for the Post Code 163/07 (Advertisement No.07/2007), and if the applicant is selected on the basis of her position in the merit list, her dossiers shall be sent to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, for necessary action. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN