Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order : 12th July, 2023
RUPINDERJIT KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.P.Gupta, Advocate
SCHOOL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Ms. Jyoti Tyagi and Ms. Manisha, Advocates for
DOE, Mr. Vipul Lamba, Advocate for R-7, Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Advocate for R-8
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs: “a. Quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No. 8 to the post of TGT Maths in Dhanpatmal Virmani Sr. Sec. School, Roop Nagar, Delhi - 110007 vide minutes of the Staff Selection Committee dated 25.08.2017 (Annexure- Pl). b. Direct the respondent No. 1 to 6 to appoint the petitioner to the post of TGT Maths in Dhanpatmal Virmani Sr. Sec. School; Roop Nagar, Delhi - 110007 with all consequential benefits. c. Direct the respondent No. 7 to cancel the Degree of MA Maths of respondent No. 8 as the same is obtained by playing a fraud with the University. d. Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the peculiar circumstance of the case in interest of justice may also please be awarded.”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the decision by the respondent whereby her selection to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, Maths (hereinafter “TGT Maths”), at the respondent school was not confirmed.
3. It is submitted that one post of TGT Maths was vacant at the respondent school, pursuant to which advertisement for the application of the said position was published on 15th October 2016. The petitioner applied for the said advertised post regarding TGT Maths.
4. It is submitted that out of 58 candidates who applied for the said position 13 candidates were found eligible for interview. It is further submitted that only 6 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for the interview on 25th August 2017, including the petitioner and respondent no. 8. Subsequently, respondent no. 8, Ms. Pooja was declared selected vide minutes of the Staff Selection Committee dated 25th August 2017, for the said post.
5. It is submitted that as per the merit list, respondent no. 8 scored 1st rank, Ms. Ashu Rani scored 2nd rank and the petitioner herein scored 3rd rank.
6. It is further submitted that a Writ Petition bearing W.P (C) NO. 1160/2018 was filed by Ms. Ashu Rani, who was one of the participants appearing in the interview and stood second to respondent no. 8 in the merit list, for selection to the aforesaid post. Ms. Ashu Rani, the petitioner therein alleged that the degree of Masters in Mathematics held by the respondent no. 8 is fabricated and there is interpolation of marks given in the interview to the respondent no. 8. It was contended by the petitioner that since, the respondent no. 8 is not qualified; her appointment is illegal and invalid. It is submitted that respondent no. 8 was awarded 7.[4] marks for her MA Degree which stands null and void as her degree was forged and fabricated. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07th February 2018 in the said petition, disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction to the respondent no. 4 to conduct an inquiry regarding the same.
7. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the inquiry was conducted by respondent no. 4. The petitioner herein requested the respondent school to supply her copy of the Inquiry Report. The same was out rightly denied by the respondent school and vide their reply dated 31st May 2018, stated the reason that, since the matter is pending for adjudication before this Court, they cannot supply with the Inquiry Report to the petitioner.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a notice dated 18th June 2018 to the respondents and a reminder letter dated 13th July 2018. The respondent did not respond and the petitioner was left with no choice, had to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.
9. It has been further submitted that, Ms. Ashu Rani submitted her No-Objection letter dated 02nd August 2018 to the petitioner stating and declaring that she is not interested in her appointment to the said position at the respondent school.
10. It is submitted that the said post of TGT Maths is lying vacant till date. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 8 has been relieved from her post and Ms. Ashu Rani who stood 2nd in the merit list, prepared for the selection of candidate on the post of TGT Maths, is no longer interested in the said post. As there is no contesting participant for that very post, petitioner may be considered as prayed. Considering the current facts and circumstances, the petitioner has a right to be appointed at the said post.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the aforesaid contentions, the petitioner is now eligible to be appointed for the vacancy for which the respondent may accordingly be directed. In view of the same, it is prayed that the respondent may be directed to appoint the petitioner to the concerned post.
12. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the present petition has been filed with the sole objective/purpose of harassing the respondent and coercing them, since she is not legally entitled to the reliefs as prayed by her.
13. It is submitted that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the due process, instituted with the intent to derail the process of law. It is further submitted that the writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court as the guardian of the Constitution is being grossly misused by the petitioner by making such a frivolous prayer by way of filing the instant petition as there is no relief which accrues to her.
14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the merit list was prepared long back in the year 2017 and now more than 5 years have elapsed. Therefore, a fresh process for selection of candidates for the said post is required to be initiated for the appointment of any suitable candidate. Such post cannot be filled on the basis of the merit list prepared way back in August 2017.
15. It is further submitted that the post of TGT Maths in the respondent school is lying vacant since respondent no. 8 was relieved from her post. Furthermore, any appointment can only be made after the Directorate of Education advertises the said post.
16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in view of the aforesaid arguments advanced, the petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that there is no legal right that has been accrued to the petitioner on the basis of the merit list of 2017.
17. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
18. During the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at this stage, he is only pressing upon „prayer b‟ since „prayer a and c‟ stand infructuous. It was argued and put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent no. 8 had been relieved from her post and Ms. Ashu Rani who secured 2nd rank in the merit list has given her No-Objection stating that she is not interested in joining the post of TGT Maths at the respondent school. It has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since rank no. 1 is disqualified and rank no. 2 is no longer interested in joining the said position, the petitioner remains to be the, only eligible candidate left to join the post of TGT Maths as per the merit list of 2017.
19. For the reference of this Court, Prayer „b‟ is reproduced as under: "b. Direct the respondent No. 1 to 6 to appoint the petitioner to the post of TGT Maths in Dhanpatmal Virmani Sr. Sec. School; Roop Nagar, Delhi - 110007 with all consequential benefits."
20. At this juncture, this Court finds it necessary to adjudicate upon the present petition by framing the following issues: -
1. Whether the merit list of 2017, entitles the petitioner any legal right to get appointed at the concerned post?
2. Whether the merit list prepared in the year 2017 could survive for indefinite period?
21. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and contents made in the instant petition, this Court will now deal with the issue No. 1 i.e., Whether the merit list entitles the petitioner any legal right to get appointed at the concerned post?
22. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police & Anr. v. Umesh Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 3334/2020 order dated 07th October 2020, on the aspect of whether the merit list creates a legal right for appointment to the concerned post, has observed as follows:
17. …. The High Court has been manifestly in error in issuing a mandamus to the appellants to appoint the respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The direction was clearly contrary to law….”
23. Further, the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala while dealing with a similar issue observed in A. Abdul Razak v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 9460, as under;
24. The aforesaid judgments have clearly elaborated upon the issue that a candidate does not have a vested right on the post merely on the ground that his name is reflected in the merit list. Inclusion of a candidate‟s name in the merit list/list of shortlisted candidates will not by default create any legal right in their favour. Consequently, it will not create a legal duty upon the authority to appoint such candidate.
25. Applying the legal principle as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in the present scenario, even though the petitioner secured 3rd position in the merit list of 2017, it will not entitle her to any legal right to be appointed at the said post. Not granting her the position after rank 1 was dismissed and rank 2 waived her seat, does not amount to violation of any legal right. Therefore, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted in directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the said post. Accordingly, issue no. 1 has been decided.
26. Now adverting to the issue No.2 - Whether the merit list prepared in the year 2017 could survive for indefinite period?
27. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 706, has observed the following:
28. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich (Supra) has held that the validity of the merit list is for a reasonable period only and it cannot be considered valid for an indefinite or even a prolonged period.
29. In the present scenario, the merit list was published way back in the year 2017 for the post of TGT Maths, since more than 5 years have elapsed. Considering the belated stage, it will be highly improper for this Court to review the said merit list. There has to be certain reasonable duration during which the merit list can be considered by this Court to grant any relief. Furthermore, this Court whilst relying upon the above mentioned judgment finds that although there exists no explicit rule or law which prescribes a fixed period or duration for which the merit list remains valid, the merit list cannot be kept alive for consideration for such a significantly long time period. Hence, in the process of imparting justice and dealing with the issue within the four corners of law, no merit is found in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, issue no. 2 has been decided.
30. This Court has relied upon the aforesaid judgments and is of the view that a merit list only enlists the selected candidates but does not confer any right for appointment upon the selected candidates and the merit list cannot stay alive for an indefinite period of time for enforcement.
31. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out her case for issuance of the writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her to the post of TGT Maths at the respondent school.
32. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
33. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.