Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. The applicant, who belongs to SC category, has filed this OA impugning the Public Notice dated 30.12.2014, whereby her result list wherein she was declared qualified securing 62 marks at Sl. No.78, has been rejected, OA No-712/2015 under the category of 'List of Candidates whose qualification is acquired after cut-off date' in spite of the fact that she was allowed to appear in the Examination for Staff Nurse (Post Codes 20/13 & 22/13) in response to the Advertisement Number 01/13 after issuance of Admit Card, after she had made her status clear by writing on the body of the application in the prescribed OMR Form as "Result Awaited" (Annexure A-1) .

3. The applicant had appeared in final examination in January, 2013 for her Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (F), and was hopeful that the result would be out before the closing date, i.e., 20.03.2013. It OA No-712/2015 was in this backdrop that she had applied for the post of Staff Nurse (Post Codes 20/13 & 22/13), duly mentioning on the application form "Result Awaited".

4. In pursuance to her application, the Respondent No.R-2 DSSSB issued her the Admit Card and allowed the applicant to appear and write her Staff Nurse Exam held on 09.06.2013. She appeared in the Examination and was declared qualified by securing 62 marks, at Sl. No.78, as mentioned above.

7. The applicant has assailed the actions of the Respondent No.R-2 DSSSB on the ground that only because she had obtained her Diploma after the closing date, the cancellation of her candidature is not sustainable in law. It was submitted that the denial of employment to her, who belongs to SC category, particularly when she wrote the OA No-712/2015 examination clearly mentioning on the application form 'Result Awaited', is harsh, and contrary to the settled principles of law, when it was her legitimate expectation that her candidature would be considered, and not out-rightly rejected as per the impugned notice, particularly when she had been duly declared qualified in the said competitive Examination on merit, securing 62 marks.

15. The applicant filed her rejoinder on 08.09.2016 more or less reiterating her contentions made in the OA. It was submitted that the judgment cited by the respondents is not applicable, because she had not mis-represented at the time of filling up the application form that she did not possess the educational qualification, and had clearly and unambiguously indicated that her result was awaited, by writing 'Result Awaited'. It was further submitted that rejection of her candidature is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, inasmuch as it would differentiate between those who had acquired the educational qualification by 20.03.2013, and those who appeared in the relevant examination before the said date, but because of administrative reasons, their results were declared after 20.03.2013. It was further submitted that she had acquired the requisite qualification while the process of selection was still on, and such a classification is not based on any intelligible differentia, having no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In support of this plea, she had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725.