Kavita v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) dated 14.10.2019 by which O.A. filed by the petitioner stands rejected.

2. The petitioner had appeared in the examination pursuant to an 2019:DHC:6981-DB advertisement issued by respondent No.2 with regard to 20 vacancies for appointment to the post of TGT (Natural Science). The petitioner was declared successful in the examination; however she did not find place in the list of first 20 successful candidates. Out of the successful candidates, four candidates did not join; and therefore another list consisting of the next 10 candidates was prepared, in which list the petitioner was shown at

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                  “                                                       │
│                  Sl.   Roll No.   Name            DOB           Marks    │
│                  No                                                      │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                  1     49101266   AARTI           04/07/1987 77.75       │
│                  2     49100347   SARITA          01/01/1980 76.75       │
│                                   MANN                                   │
│                  3     49000493   PRIYANKA        01/12/1988 76.75       │
│                  4     49000574   POOJA           25/09/1987 76.5        │
│                                   SHOKEEN                                │
│                  5     49000159   LAXMI           09/02/1989 76.5        │
│                                   YADAV                                  │
│                  6     49001000   POONAM          13/07/1986 76.25       │
│                                   BERIWAL                                │
│                  7     49000175   RITU            23/05/1990 76          │
│                                   KHATRI                                 │
│                  8     49000151   KAVITA          27/09/1988 75.25       │
│                  9     49000358   AKANKSHA 15/06/1989 74.5               │
│                                   DESHWAL                                │
│                  10    49000312   NIDHI           08/09/1990 74.5        │
│                                   SANWAL                                 │
│                                                                   „      │
│ 5.     As per the second list the petitioner’s name is shown at serial   │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

6. As regards the contention of the applicant regarding cancellation of the candidature of 04 candidates and returning their dossiers for replacement, the Board, as per policy, drew candidates from waiting panel which is valid for one year from the date of declaration of results. The result for the post of TGT (Natural Science), Post Code- 11/13 was declared on 03/08/2016 and the waiting panel is valid upto 02/08/2017. However, the User department, i.e. Directorate of Education returned the dossiers of 04 candidates vide letters dated 29/09/2017 & 05/02/2018 i.e. after the expiry of waiting panel. The unfilled vacancies were also returned to the User department for future notification, as per DOPT guidelines. 7, It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant unfortunately stood no chance for her nomination as there were 20 candidates in the merit list between her and the last provisionally nominated candidate.

8. Keeping in view the above stated position, it is conveyed that the candidature of the applicant, Ms. Kavita cannot be considered for selection to the post of TGT (Natural Science) Female, Post Code-11/13 under UR (sic) category. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.”

6. In this order the user department has clearly noted the contention of the petitioner and thereafter informed the petitioner that 20 vacancies under OBC category were available, out of which 16 vacancies had already been filled-up by candidates who were higher in merit than the petitioner. The last candidate provisionally nominated under the OBC category secured 76.50 marks while the petitioner had secured 75.25 marks; and therefore her candidature could not be considered for nomination. The grievance of the petitioner was also examined regarding cancellation of four candidates and returning of their dossiers for replacement to the board. It was explained that the wait-list is valid only for one year from the date of declaration of results. The results were declared on 03.08.2016; and the waiting panel was valid upto 02.08.2017; and that the user department returned the dossiers of four candidates after the expiry of the waiting panel.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

8. In our view, the decision rendered by the respondents, while deciding the representation of the petitioner, requires no interference. It is to be noted that the petitioner stakes her claim with respect to an examination held in the year 2013, although thereafter a second examination has already been held and though the petitioner participated in the later examination, she was declared unsuccessful. After the second examination having been held, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner for an examination held earlier.

9. We accordingly find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal; no grounds are made-out for interference by way of the present petition, which is therefore dismissed. C.M. Nos.53672/2019 and 53674/2019

10. Since the main writ petition is dismissed, these applications are also dismissed. G.S.SISTANI, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. DECEMBER 13, 2019 Ne