Full Judgment Text
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Judgment: 23 August, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 9119/2019
PRITIKA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Aditya Aggarwal, Mr.Ankit
Mutreja, Mr.Amit Rana and
Ms.Ruchika, Advocates
versus
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
(DSSSB) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat with Mr.Nitesh
Singh, Advts. for R-1 and R-2.
Mr.Arun Birbal and Mr.Sanjay Singh,
Advocates for SDMC/R-3.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, standing
counsel for East DMC/R-4 with
Mr.Hem Kumar and Ms.Bushra
Waseem, Advocates.
Ms.Namrata Mukim, Adv. for North
DMC/R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M.37642/2019 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9119/2019
3. Counsels for the respondents enter appearance on advance copy.
W.P.(C) 9119/2019 Page 1 of 6
4. The present petition is directed against the order dated 26.07.2019
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Some necessary
facts, which gave rise to filing of OA before the CAT, which are
required to be noticed are that:
(a) an advertisement was published in the newspaper by the Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)/respondent no.1 on
07.08.2017 for filling up 1286 vacancies for the post of Primary
Teacher in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under OBC
Delhi category;
(b) these posts were re-advertised on 26.06.2018 and entrance tests
were conducted in four slots between 30.09.2018 and 28.10.2018;
(c) on 01.02.2019, the respondent No.1 declared cut-off marks of
98.50 for the OBC Delhi category and candidates were allowed to
upload e-dossiers subject to attaining minimum qualifying marks
and correctness of the information furnished;
(d) E-dossiers of 2576 candidates for filing-up 1286 vacancies were
uploaded and the names of the petitioners were also amongst the
shortlisted candidates;
(e) on 28.03.2019, results were declared and 980 candidates were
selected out of 2576 shortlisted candidates; besides another list of
180 pending candidates;
(f) the petitioners were not selected.
5. During the course of hearing, we asked the learned counsel for the
petitioner to point-out the relevant paragraph in the O.A., which sets-
out his grievance. Learned counsel has placed reliance on paragraph 4.9
of the O.A., which we reproduce below:
W.P.(C) 9119/2019 Page 2 of 6
“4.9 That the applicants through their resources came to know
that the respondent no.3 i.e. MCD after receiving the abovesaid
complaint/s of the applicants is conducting a formal verification
of the genuineness of the OBC Certificate of only 77 candidates
which were selected vide the result notification 774 dated
16.04.2019 and not of all the candidates which were selected
earlier. It is further submitted that the respondent no.3 i.e. MCD
directed the abovesaid persons to appear before the verification
committee and requested them for bringing original OBC (Delhi)
Certificate and original documents of residential proof of Delhi
prior to 1993 on the basis of which their OBC Certificate has
been issued to prove the genuineness of your OBC (Delhi)
Certificate. It is to be noted that the abovesaid act of the
respondent no.3 is a clear case of camouflage. It is further
submitted that in the abovesaid notification the MCD has not
published about the documents which would be considered as
genuine documents to prove their residential status prior to
1993.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a cursory glance would
show that in the list of 180 candidates, there were OBC candidates from
outside Delhi. He submits that even in the finalised list, there are many
candidates who do not qualify as being OBC candidates from Delhi.
7. In this backdrop, the following prayers were made before the Tribunal ,
which we reproduce below:
“(a) Allow the present OA and may pass an order/direction to
declare the concerned candidates who were selected on the basis
of OBC Delhi Caste Certificate procured on the basis of forged
and fabricated documents in order to comply with the guidelines
issued by the respondent no.2 (i.e. Revenue Department) as
ineligible for the concerned post.
(b) May pass the direction/order for judicial inquiry for
ascertaining/verifying the documents submitted by the candidates
who applied for the said post under the OBC Category before the
respondent no.2 (i.e. Revenue Department) for procuring the
OBC Delhi Caste Certificate.
W.P.(C) 9119/2019 Page 3 of 6
(c) May direct the respondents to appoint the applicants on the
post of MCD Primary Teacher vancancies (Post code – 16/17 &
01/18).
(d) May direct the respondent no.1 to further extend the validity
of the wait list/panel for such period as may be necessary
(e) Allow the present application with cost, in favour of the
applicant.”
8. Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2,
submits that the role of DSSSB/respondent No.1 is limited and is
confined to conducting the examination and declaring the results, which
has since been done and the results have been forwarded to the User
Department, namely the MCD.
9. Attention of the Court is drawn to para 11 of the communication
addressed to the User Department, which is also reproduced below:
“11. The User department shall also check the eligibility of the
reservation benefit, if any. Further, if applicable, User
Department shall verify the genuineness of the caste certificate
furnished by the candidate prior to issuing offer of appointment
to the candidates. The Competent Authority of the User
Department shall arrange to verify the correctness of the
information/documents as furnished in the application forms and
e-dossier vis-à-vis the original documents, MCD is requested to
ascertain the scrutiny/correctness of the same at their own level
before issuing the offer of appointment to the provisionally
selected candidates. Further, the appointing authority shall verify
and satisfy itself about the authenticity of documents/certificates
and essential qualification for the post before finally appointing
the candidate. The User Department is also requested to
rectify/correct, in case, any minor/clerical error/deficiency
noticed in the documents of the candidate at their own level.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
W.P.(C) 9119/2019 Page 4 of 6
10. Reliance is placed by Ms.Ahlawat on the aforementioned para 11 to
buttress her submission that it is for the User Department to check the
eligibility of the reservation benefit and the genuineness of the caste
certificate furnished by each candidate, prior to issuing offers of
appointment to the candidates. She further submits that the competent
authority of the User Department verifies the correctness of the
information/documents as furnished in the application forms and e-
dossiers vis-à-vis the original documents. In short, the submission of
Ms.Ahlawat is that no relief would lie against respondents Nos.1 and 2.
11. As far as the User Department is concerned, learned counsels for the
respondents submit that results are yet to be finalised and the entire
verification is yet to be carried out. They further submit that there is no
infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the order by the
Tribunal, that would warrant interference. In fact, liberty has been
granted to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal again after
declaration of the results, in case the petitioner is able to show that an
application of a candidate has been approved despite not being an OBC
candidate from Delhi.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the OA
before the CAT and the writ petition filed here are only on account of
the fact that the petitioners did not qualify the cut-off list. Prayers made
in the OA and the relief sought amounts to a fishing and roving enquiry,
which cannot be permitted. The prayer made against DSSSB is almost
an absurdity, considering that DSSSB conducts almost 1000
examinations per year; if such applications are allowed, even prior to
W.P.(C) 9119/2019 Page 5 of 6
the publication of the final results, no examination would ever see
finality.
13. Accordingly, we find no merit in this writ petition as the same is pre-
mature. The allegations and contentions raised are vague, non-specific
and such a petition cannot be entertained.
14. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to
be paid to the Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
AUGUST 23, 2019/ rb
W.P.(C) 9119/2019 Page 6 of 6