Full Text
W.P.(C) 12498/2018
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD (Services) along with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.Tania Ahlawat and Ms. Aarushi, Advocates.
Through:
Respondents Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel for SDMC with Ms.Komal
Sorout.
Ms. Eshita Bamah, Advocate for Ms.Biji Rajesh, Advocate for NDMC.
Mr. Amit Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates for EDMC.
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD (Services) along with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.Tania Ahlawat and Ms. Aarushi, Advocates
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel for SDMC with Ms.Komal
2018:DHC:9062-DB r Sorout.
Ms. Eshita Baruah, Advocate for Ms.Biji Rajesh, Advocate for NDMC.
Mr. Akbar Siddique, Addl. Standing Counsel for EDMC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
26.11.2018
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and Govt. of
NCT of Delhi had preferred the present writ petitions to assail the order dated 28.05.2018 in OA No.1436/2015 [in W.P.(C) 12498/2018] and order dated 11.05.2018 in OA No.28/2015 [in W.P.(C) 12499/2018] passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal').
The Tribunal allowed the said original applications preferred by the respective respondents-applicants and issued a direction to the petitioner-
DSSSB to select and recommend the respondents-applicants for appointment to the post ofTeacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD) against unreserved vacancy within one month from the date of the order. The MCD had been directed to appoint the respondents- applicants to the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD against unreserved vacancy within one month from the date of receipt of recommendation and dossier in respect of the respondents-applicants from the DSSSB. The
Tribunal had restricted the relief to the respondents-applicants by observing that they shall only be entitled to the service benefits from the date of their joining the service as Teacher (primary) in MCD. The respective respondents were appointed to work as Teacher (Primary) in MCD on contractual basis for different spans of time. The respondent in WP(C)
12498/2018 served in that capacity as a contractual teacherbetween 2005 to
ORDER
2013. On the other hand, the respondent in W(C) 12499/2018 served as a contractual teacher between 2003 to 2014. The respondent-MCD sought to fill the vacancies of Teacher (Primary) on regular basis and consequently came out with an advertisement. The qualifying age was 30 years upper limit for the unreserved category candidates. The respondents-applicants have crossed the said age limit. Like the respondents-applicants, hundreds of other contractual teachers have been serving on the said post and in respect of 347 contractual teachers, age relaxation was granted under the orders of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi. However, the names of the respective respondents-applicants were left out from the said list of 347 candidates and consequently they were not granted age relaxation. Being aggrieved by their exclusion, and discriminatory treatment meted out to them, the respondents moved their respective original applications. Under interim orders, they were permitted to participate in the selection process. After calling for replies from the respondents before the Tribunal, the original applications have been allowed on the ground of parity. The submission of Ms. Ahlawat, learned counsel is that the MCD has not provided any information to the petitioner in respect of the respective u respondents with regard to the period during which they have served and whether they were entitled to age relaxation like the 347 contractual teachers who were granted age relaxation by the GNCTD. We do not find any merit in the submissions for the reason that the MCD was respondent before the Tribunal and MCD did not offer any justification for exclusion of the names of the respective respondents from the list of 347 candidates who were granted age relaxation. Consequently, there is no reason for the petitioner to raise a doubt with regard to the claim of the respondents to seek age relaxation like hundreds of other candidates, who were granted the same. We find no merit in these petitions; they are accordingly dismissed along with pending applications.
NOVEMBER 26, 2018 nn VIPIN SANGHI, J lir
A. K. CHAWLA, J