DSSSB AND ANR v. PAWAN KUMAR

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 10105/2024 & CM APPL. 41388/2024

3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer: “(a) quash and set aside the per-se perverse judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2153 of 2019”.

4. The facts of the present case are that upon requisition received from the user Department (Directorate of Education) vide advertisement No. 02/12, the DSSSB advertised a total of 74 vacancies (UR-40, OBC-22, SC-12, ST-00, OH-01, VH-2) for the post of PGT (Political Science) (Male). The respondent applied for the said post under ST Category and qualified Tier I examination and thereafter, appeared in Tier II examination in which he obtained 131.[5] marks and was placed as candidate no. l in the waitlist. Since he could not get the place, he filed OA No. 4457/2018 which was disposed of on 05.12.2018 with the following directions:-

5. Complying with the said order dated 05.12.2018 of the Tribunal, DSSSB passed a speaking order No. F.1(280)/CCII/DSSSB/2017/2499 dated 03.05.2019 vide which candidature of the respondent was considered and cancelled.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed Contempt Petition No. 159/2019 which was closed on 15.07.2019, thereafter, the petitioners filed the OA NO. 2153/2019 and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 16.04.2024 which is impugned before this Court.

7. It is not in dispute that for the post mentioned above, 12 vacancies were reserved for SC candidates, however, 14 SC candidates obtained more marks than the respondent and out of those 14 candidates, 2 were selected against the unreserved category and the rest of 12 candidates were selected against the vacancies reserved for SC candidates. However, the respondent was kept as a waitlisted candidate. Vide result notice No. 487 dated 17.03.2017, candidature of one candidate, namely Durgesh Kumar (Roll No. 39000086), who was selected against the SC category, was kept pending for want of requisite documents. Though various opportunities were provided to said Durgesh Kumar to submit requisite documents, he failed to do so. Hence, his candidature was finally rejected on 27.09.2018 vide notice No. 720.

8. The case of respondent before the learned Tribunal was that the result for the post code 149/12 was declared on 17.03.2017 and as per DSSSB notification no. F.1(192)/DSSSB/P&P/13/5363-72 dated 13.06.2013, the reserve panel/waiting list was valid for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result. Thus, the waiting list was valid upto 16.03.2018 only and after expiry of the waiting panel, no candidate could be nominated against cancelled candidature of Durgesh Kumar. Consequently, the unfilled vacancies for the post of PGT (Pol. Science) under post code 149/12 have already been returned to the user department with a request to include the unfilled vacancy in their next requisition and the selection process for the said post code was closed due to which the respondent could not be selected.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent before the learned Tribunal submitted that the OA is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4021/2024 decided on 18.03.2024 titled as Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. vs. Mohd Vaquar Khan. Para 11 of the said order reads as under:-

│
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

10. Case of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal was that once as per the rule position and policy, the waitlist panel has been exhausted, no right accrues to the applicant/respondent for seeking the relief as a right. Even the selected candidate or the short listed candidate does not have a right to be appointed, let alone about the case of the waitlisted candidates.

11. It is not in dispute that result of the present case was declared on 17.03.2017 and the life of the waitlisted candidate should have been only upto 16.03.2018 whereas they continued to ask the documents from Durgesh Kumar and when he failed submit the documents, finally the petitioners herein cancelled his candidature on 27.09.2018, therefore, the respondent herein continued to accept this waitlist candidature upto 27.09.2018. In that situation, the petitioners should have offered to the next waitlist candidate, who is respondent herein at Serial No.1, however, failed to do so. Therefore, he challenged the same before the learned Tribunal, and thereafter, filed the Contempt Petition and finally again approached the learned Tribunal as mentioned above which was allowed and the same is impugned by the petitioners herein.

12. It is not in dispute and has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that waiting list/reserve panel candidates who are in waiting list have no vested right to be appointed. The petitioners themselves should have complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement i.e., the operation of the reserve panel would not have been by virtue of the artificial fiction which has been created by the petitioners by inviting Durgesh Kumar from time to time, without any reasonable cause beyond the period of waiting panel as specified. Rather, the respondent could have been granted an opportunity to come and accept the offer of appointment timely which the petitioner failed to do so.