Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arti Sharma vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 19 July, 2024
1
RA No. 157/2023
Item No. 40 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
R.A. No. 157/2023 in
O.A. No. 3558/2019
This the 19th Day of July, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Ms. Arti Sharma (UR)
Age about 33 years
Recruit Supervisor Grade-II (Female)
Roll No. 12209787
D/o Sh. R. K. Sharma R/O- BU-90, Vishaka Enclave,
Pitam Pura, Delhi
....Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. A.K. Bhakt)
VERSUS
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi-
1. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board,
Through its Chairman
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
2. The Director,
Department of Social Welfare
Department of Women and Child Development,
1 Canning Lane, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi
.... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari with Mr. D.K.
Singh)
2
RA No. 157/2023
Item No. 40 (C-4)
ORDER (ORAL)
In the instant RA, learned counsel for the review applicant states that the impugned order is passed on conjectures and surmises. He highlights para 6.4 of the order which would reflect the statement of the counsel of the review applicant herein. He would contend that how the respondents in reply to RA could state that no parity can be claimed. He would say that the order is passed in rem has been interalia to the effect that the experience furnished by the applicant within the cut off time is only 03 years, 08 months and 20 days. However, the order in RA, which needs to be recalled in so far para 6.4 is concerned, the same reads as under :
"6.4 Having considered the issues in the above manner, the question now comes whether the rejection of the candidature of the applicant by respondent no.2 under rejection ground
(ii) was justifiable or not. As we have already discussed under issue no. (a), in absence of the relevant educational qualification as graduate in disciplines like Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition or Social Work, the candidature of the present applicant was to be considered as a female candidate with 10 years of experience as Anganwari worker. The experience furnished by the applicant within the cut-off time is only 3 years 8 months and 20 days. Even by counting the experience from 20.07.2016 to 3.05.2017 as per the certificate furnished by the present applicant after the due date, her total experience will come to 4 years and 6 months approx. Hence, she does not have the experience of 10 years as Anganwari worker to be educationally qualified for the post of Supervisor Grade II (female)."3 RA No. 157/2023
Item No. 40 (C-4)
2. Opposing the RA, learned counsel for the respondents rely upon the averment contained in the reply affidavit. Para 2 of the reply affidavit reads as under :
"2. That Review is an exception to the principle of finality of judicial pronouncements and confined to the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII of the C.P.C. namely an erroneous decision; an error which is apparent on the face of the record and not consequent to elaborate arguments; error must be patent in character- a disregard of a settled proposition of law or a relevant statutory provision as it stood on the day of passing of the order which has been called for review; to correct a substantial injustice which may have resulted from the decision."
3. Further, in para 8 of reply affidavit, it has been averred as under :
"PARA 8.
The applicant applied under the UR category, sub-category- AWW. If applicant considered against UR category (75%) vacancies she is overage by 0 1 year 10 months 03 days and thereby not eligible being overage. If here candidature was consider under AWW category (25%) then also she was not eligible as not having 10 years experience as Anganwadi worker. The essential condition as per Advertisement No. 2/14 dated 12.12.2014 in Post Code 212/14 for RR, "Experience (Essential)-10 years experience as an Anganwadi Workers (only for Anganwadi Workers)". Which applicant does not qualifies to be considered as AWW for the benefit of experience Certificate of AWW of 3 years 8 months.
No parity can be claimed with other selected candidates and the Recruitment process stands over.
The interpretation being given to age relaxation provision by the Applicant is not tenable as the Applicant is overage by 1 year 10 months and 3 days and the judgment is correct.
No parity can be claimed with other selected candidates and the Recruitment process stands over.4 RA No. 157/2023
Item No. 40 (C-4) The interpretation being given to age relaxation provision by the Applicant is not tenable as the Applicant is overage by 1 year 10 months and 3 days and the judgment is correct."
4. During the course of hearing, it has also been argued that the applicant applied under UR category for the post of Supervisor. If she is considered against UR category (75%) vacancies, she is overage by 01 year, 10 months and 03 days and hence not eligible being overage. Even if her candidature was considered under AWW category (25%), she was not eligible as not possessing the requisite 10 years experience as Anganwadi Worker.
5. In view of the above, there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of it. Accordingly, the RA stands dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nk/