DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD v. PUNISH & ORS.

6. Due to aforesaid redrawing of the lists, ·Hariom Ahlawat, the l'irsL respondent in vV.P.(C) No.915/2013 who was at serial No.24 in the c:ltegory oC unreserved candidates, having obtained 111 marks got pushed out from the merit list as he could not find a place in the merit list o I~ 25 candidates on account of the fact that he was born on July 05, 1987:mel was the youngest amongst the 6 candidates in the unreserved c:1tegory \Nho had obtained 111 marks. Similarly, Punish who had obtai ned 109 marks and found himself at serial No.11 of the original list

7. 13ut before the lists were redrawn, since DSSSB intimated to Lhe Director General (Prisons) the names of the selected candidates as originally dr8wn up, the Director General (Prisons) started issuing letters o!Tering appointment to the candidates and the result was that both I llmiorn Ahlawat and Punish accepted letter o±Iering appointment and joined. By the time on June 26, 2009, DSSSB requested Director enernl (Prisons) to keep in abeyance the select list for-vvardecl,:1ppointments had already been made. The lists were later up redrawn on December 21, 2009. I) 0.. The result was that Hariom Ahlawat and Punish faced threat ol· losing their job and both approached the Central Administrative 'l't-ibun;:d questioning the lists being redrawn. () Deciding OA No.3429/2010 filed by Hariom Ahlawat the Tribunnl round, and we quote from the order of the Tribunal:- ''In their counter reply dated 22.12.2010, the DSSSB has suhtrzitted the revised 1nerit list in respect ofcandidates v;ith morks I I 1 as per their age. The list shovvs a total 11 condidotes,· the ncnne of the applicant figuring pt

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                -                                                              │
│          SL. ROLL                 -NAME OF THE             CAT    D.O.B.      │
│      ~------                                                                  │
│          No. 1"[0                                                             │
│      -------------- ---------                                                 │
│                                    CANDIDATE                                  │
│           I.          012!0716                                                │
│      -- ----·----· ------                                                     │
│                                    Ram Babu                OBC     05.08.77   │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│          2.           012\i\580    Rajpal Singh ·          OBC     01.04.82   │
│          .,                                                                   │
│      ---- --·--- --------                                                     │
│          .J.                                                                  │
│      -----·--- - - - -                                                        │
│                       01211779     Subodh Gahlot           OBC     09.05.82   │
│          4.                                                                   │
│      ---------- -                                                             │
│                       01214547    1\llanoj Rana            OBC     01.08.82   │
│          5.           01214051     Punish                  OBC     10.11.82   │
│                       01210722     Sarita Yadav                               │
│      --~--                                                                    │
│          6.                                                                   │
│      ------- --                                                               │
│                                                            OBC     08.12.82   │
│          7.                                                                   │
│       -- --------                                                             │
│                -·-                                                            │
│                       Ol2l0354                                                │
│                         ---                                                   │
│                                    Pradeep                 OBC     19.07.83   │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

12. Allowing O.A.No.3433/2010 filed by Punish vide order dated November 16, 2011, the reasoning of the Tribunal is similar to its earlier decision INhere the Tribunal has noted that discounting those OBC cancliclates who bad either not joined or whose papers were found to be noL in order, Punish would find a place amongst 11 candidates.

13. Chsllenge to the two decisions is by DSSSB; and VIe highlight not the Director General (Prisons), who seems to be happy for Ll1e rez1son the population of prisoners, both unde1irials as well as convicts i11 the Central Jail Tihar is far in excess of the capacity of the prison and thus he needing all posts to be filled up. !4. The grievance to the impugned decisions by DSSSB, is that it had drawn up a select panel of only 25 candidates in the unreserved 1.::1Legory:mel I I in the OBC category and thus the effect of the impugned decisions is Lhe elongation of the select list.

15. We hsve repeatedly passed orders that it is the Service !Department which has to take the decision whether to maintain a ·wait list ~1pply for a Jc\v posts, clue to shmiage of manpower, DSSSB does not:-:;crutinizc the 3pplicatlons with reference to-the documents annexed by the cnncliclates with respect to the eligibility conditions being_ fulfilled. After lhe selection process is over, DSSSB scrutinizes the ce1iificates filed by 1he candidales \Nith their application forms. As in the instant case, where candicl~1ture of 3 OBC candidates was rejected on account of not producing the relevant OBC certificate, we found in other cases, similar things happening pertaining to not only OBC candidates but even ST, SC:1:; well as General category candidates, for the latter, issues pertaining to <ll~quiring eligibility as of the cutoff date arose, rendering them ineligible.

16. No\N, as in the instant case, if only 11 OBC candidates are.<)hot·Llisted in the merit list and thereafter it is found that 3 are ineligible, we see no justification for the Board to only forward names of 8 c;l!lcl idcrles to the Service Depmime11t. Ineligible candidates being removed, subject to eligibility and qualifYing, 3 more candidates have to be included in the select panel and names forwarded to the Service Departn1ent. Besides, we find that considerable time, sometimes up to.as ' many <:ls 2 years lapses, between the elates when applications are invited Jl·om eligible candidates and results declared. We have been noticing that in l21rge number of such cases many candidates obtain gainful employment elsewhere and notwithstanding finding a place in the select list do not even respond to the letters offering appointment. Since select list is restricted to the number of vacancies, upon said candidates not responding Lo Lhe letters offering appointment, the posts remain unfilled. -"- ---·--~ ---· <Jcivertisements inviting applications. Simple logic d.emancls that maximum benefit of revenue spent should be attempted to be achieved. I[8]. It hardly needs any emphasis to state that public interest is served when public posts are filled up. Public interest suffers when public posts rernain vacant The law of the land is that nobody has a vested right I:D be etppointed even when a vacancy is notified and the person has qualiJ~ecl, but subject to the exception that there· should be a good justification to not fill up the vacancy. Meaning thereby, filling up of a noli I~ eel v8cancy is the norm and not to fill up the same is the exception.

19 Since admittedly, both Hariom Ahlawat.and Punish' had qUl.lli lied at Lhe main exam and some persons above them in the redrawn 111eri t IisL have either not joined or were found ineligible, and as a result v:1ce:1ncies are available to be filled up by said two persons; noting further 1hat both of them were issued letters offering appointment as per the first Ii:1L drawn up, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal on tl1c: given f3cts of the case. We note that Hariotn Ahlawat had been o!'ferecl 8ppointment in CISF which he did not accept because he found the instant employment. Equities are in his favour. Similarly, Punish had heen oCh::recl a job by HDFC Bank which he did not accept having ohl<.1i ned the instant employment. ?0. Before closing we would like to observe,·with reference to Lhc facts of the instant case, that JDSSSB is i1ot following a logical step wise process to draw up the select list. 2 I. Since as per law, if those who seek benefit of re.c:;ervation, l c:Jre 0 r the si lu8tion where a candidate, pertaining to eligibility, competes nn the strength of being a SC/ST or OBC candidate. For example, if the upper age qualification requirement is 27 years, relaxable by 5 years for:~,:c/ST/Of3C candidate, any person who takes benefit of relaxation has to compete in his/het· category. Similarly, as in the instant case, pertaining to l"arL I ex3mination, qualifying marks for unreserved category were more LhEm those in the reserved category. Those who earned the right to parti ci pale at the Part II selection process after availing the benefit of being in the reserved category; with reference to the qualifYing marks obtained at the Part I examination have likewise to retain their character as reserved category candidates and cannot merge with the unreserved L~aLegory C8ndic13tes irrespective of the marks they obtain at the Part n c>camin~1tion. To put it in simple words. A reserved category candidate D·1ust join the r:Jce and complete the same without availing any benefit of ing 111 the reserved category if the name of the. candidate has to be pl~1cecl in the merit list pe1iaining to the unreserved category.

22. Noting that in the instant case, as aresult of the reVISIOn r:: 11 ected in the select list when error committed of not placing candidates with equal marks in the descending order with reference to the date of hirth was noted, the two respondents before us would not find themselves \iVilhin the nrst 25 and 11 candidates respectively in the list ofunreservecl <Incl OBC csnclidates, but having obtained marks above the cutoff limit ctnd enough number of candidates above them either being later on found l(l be ineligible or did not respond to the letter offering appointment or \ y ~')"') "·-..J rfhe \Vrit petitions are accordingly dismissed but Without any tm::lers as to costs.