W.P.(C)--814/2014. Case: DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. Vs. TAPAN NEERAJ AND ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--814/2014 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | July 23, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23.07.2014 + W.P.(C) 814/2014, C.M. NO.1633/2014
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel (Civil), for DSSSB.
versus
TAPAN NEERAJ AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Padma Kumar. S., Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Sh. Amandeep Joshi and Sh. Sameer Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) %
1. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 22.05.2013 in O.A. No. 271/2012. The impugned order had directed the appointment of the respondent (hereafter called “the candidate”) against vacancies that existed in the department. The concerned department which had declared the
vacancies and in respect of whose posts the appointments were directed, is the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (hereafter referred to as “the GNCTD”). At the outset, this Court notices that the GNCTD has not impugned the order of the CAT.
2. On the contrary, apparently the GNCTD has accepted the decision of the CAT and is in the process of appointing the candidates – evident from its letters dated 12.08.2013 and 12.02.2014 produced before the Court. The candidate had approached the CAT, stating that he had participated in a selection process for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Welfare Officer Grade-II in the GNCTD. This was pursuant to the requisitions made in the years 2005 and 2007. The respondent candidate secured 140 marks and appeared as an unreserved category candidate. It is not in dispute that at that point of time, the GNCTD had neither segregated or earmarked specific vacancies nor reserved any posts, including the post of Welfare Officer Grade-II under the Disabilities Act. Consequently, no reservation was indicated in either the requisition or the advertisement. In this background, even though the respondent candidate fared well and ranked 15th in the overall merit list, and 8th, if the candidate were to be deemed as part of the “reserved category”, he could not be appointed. He, therefore, approached the CAT. The respondent candidate had approached the CAT on an earlier occasion unsuccessfully and then was permitted by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to file a fresh application. Upon his approaching this Court under Article 226, he was granted liberty to
agitate the matter afresh with specific pleadings on the question of reservations under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as “the Disabilities Act”). Availing of the liberty, the respondent candidate approached the CAT complaining that the denial of selection and appointment by the petitioner and the GNCTD defeated his rights under the Disabilities Act. By the impugned order, the CAT...
To continue reading
Request your trial