O.A. No.702/2009 With O.A. No.709/2009. Case: 1. Jyoti Rani, Haryana, 2. Yogesh Rani, New Delhi, 3. Preeti Gupta, Delhi, 4. Anuj Kumar, Delhi, 5. Priyanka Jamini, Delhi, 6. Pawan Kumar, Delhi, 7. Sudesh, Delhi Vs 1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Dsssb., Chairman, Delhi, 2. Directorate of Education, Government of Nct of New Delhi, 3. Government of Nct of Delhi, Chief Secretary, New Delhi, 4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Commissioner, Delhi, 5. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case Number:O.A. No.702/2009 With O.A. No.709/2009
Party Name:1. Jyoti Rani, Haryana, 2. Yogesh Rani, New Delhi, 3. Preeti Gupta, Delhi, 4. Anuj Kumar, Delhi, 5. Priyanka Jamini, Delhi, 6. Pawan Kumar, Delhi, 7. Sudesh, Delhi Vs 1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Dsssb., Chairman, Delhi, 2. Directorate of Education, Government of Nct of New Delhi, 3. Government of Nct of Delhi, Chief Secretary, New Delhi, 4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Commissioner, Delhi, 5. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi
Counsel:Ajay Kumar
Judges:V. K. Bali (Chairman) & L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman)
Issue:Right to Information Act, 2005; Service Law
Judgement Date:April 08, 2009
Court:Central Administrative Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

V. K. Bali (Chairman) (Principal Bench At New Delhi)

  1. By this common order we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications bearing OA nos.702/2009 and 709/2009 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

  2. We may mention at the very outset that courts or tribunals determine the issues on law only if a favourable decision thereon may benefit or result into grant of some relief to a citizen. There is no occasion to discuss or determine academic issues sans any consequences. Present appears to be a case of that type.

  3. The facts as set out in the Applications reveal that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), 1st respondent herein, published advertisement nos. 7/2007 and 8/2007 on 12.9.2007 and 19.9.2007 respectively in regard to various vacancies of primary teachers in MCD and Government of NCT of Delhi. As per the advertisement, the 1st respondent conducted preliminary and main examinations for the posts of primary/assistant teachers on 15.6.2008 and the result was declared in September, 2008. All the applicants appeared in the examination, but till such time present Applications came to be filed, their result had not been declared. It is the case of the applicants that they fulfill the eligibility criteria. The 1st respondent in the advertisement aforesaid, with regard to assistant teachers in Government of NCT of Delhi, advertised total 875 vacancies, out of which 27 were reserved for physically handicapped persons and the reservation was to be on horizontal basis. No vacancies were shown to be reserved for ex-servicemen. For primary teachers in MCD, total vacancies were 4441 out of which 142 were reserved for physically handicapped, and 475 for ex-servicemen candidates on horizontal basis. In the result declared by the 1st respondent, the last selected candidate in general category had secured 120/200 marks, 86/200 in OBC category, 91/200 in SC category and 70/200 in ST category. For the post of assistant teacher in Government of NCT of Delhi, 400 posts were filled for unreserved category out of 406 seats, 262 were filled for OBC category out of 282 seats, 122 for SC out of 124 seats and 54 for ST out of 63 seats. Similarly, for the post of primary teacher in MCD, 1067 posts were filled for unreserved category out of 1649 seats, 923 for OBC out of 883 seats, and 559 and 494 for SC and ST out of 758 and 1151 seats respectively. It is, thus the case of the applicants that the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL