Case No.2009/1014/2020/10/1541-43 Dated:10-09-21
In the matter of:
Ms. Anju Rani,
Email: parminderpkm80@gmail.com …………….Complainant
Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi-110054 ...............Respondent No.1
The Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092 ...............Respondent No. 2
Date of Hearing: 27.07.2021
Present: Ms. Anju Rani, complainant.
Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant on behalf of Respondent No. 1
Sh. K.K. Mishra, Dy. Secretary and Sh. R.P. Tripathi, S.O. on behalf of Respondent No. 2
ORDER
The above named complainant, Ms. Anju Rani, a person with 50% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 04.06.2020 regarding non-selection for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13, which was received in this Office from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 20.10.2020. Vide her complaint, she also submitted that in compliance of order passed by Hon’ble CAT in OA No. 2330/2018 dated 01.06.2018, DSSSB passed a Speaking Order dated 17.09.2018 stating therein that she stands in waiting list of Post Code 02/13, Advertisement No. 01/13 and as on date no vacancy was lying vacant in OH category. However, during the validity of waitlist/panel (that was upto 09.11.2018) if the user department i.e. Directorate of Education (DoE) would request the DSSSB to forward the same, her dossier would be forwarded to them as per merit. She further informed that as per RTI reply sought from the concerned (User) Department the posts were still lying vacant. She approached DSSSB several times for issuing the dossiers but the DSSSB refused to do so on the pretext that no post is lying vacant in UR OH category. Thus, DSSSB had passed false Speaking Order. She alleged that she should not be penalised because of in-coordination between the departments. She requested for justice in the matter.
2. The matter was taken up with the DSSSB vide letter dated 11.11.2020 followed by reminder dated 17.12.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Dy. Secretary, DSSSB on 06.01.2021 vide which it was informed that the result of above post code was declared on 09.11.2017 for which waiting Panel was valid upto 09.11.2018. The name of the candidate Ms. Anju Rani having Roll No. 69000113 was as per waiting panel in OH category. However, no dossier was received back under the said category from the User Department during the validity period of Waiting Panel. Hence, her name could not be considered for selection.
3. The complainant vide her rejoinder dated 24.01.2021 stated as per DSSSB the result for the Post of Librarian, Post Code 02/13 was declared by them on 09.11.2017 so the wait list was valid till 09.11.2018. But the DSSSB contradicted its own statement when result Notice No. 610 dated 13.02.2018, result Notice No. 737 dated 12.11.2018 and result Notice No. 747 dated 16.01.2019 were declared by them for the same post code and advertisement number. Complainant therefore, emphasised that wait list should be valid upto 16.01.2020 as per DSSSB Notification dated 13.06.2013 as it clarifies that the waitlist shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result and vacancies arising due to non-acceptance of offer of appointment, not joining the post or due to resignation of the selected candidates within one year of joining the post shall be filled up from the reserved panel/waitlist.
4. The complainant further informed that as per DoE vacancy position sent to DSSSB on 05.04.2018, there were 18 vacancies that remained unfilled for the post of Librarian post code 02/13, out of these two vacancies were of UR/OH. The DoE, vide its letter dated 29.12.2018, once again returned the dossiers of 15 candidates, who did not join or resigned including the dossier of one Sh. Dhananjay Kumar in UR/OH category.
5. The matter was taken up with the Directorate of Education vide this office letter dated 04.02.2021 to seek explanation for delaying in submission of requisite dossier to the DSSSB (i.e. after expiry of validity of wait list panel) followed by reminder dated 11.03.2021.
6. DoE vide its letter dated 15.04.2021 submitted that DoE received 289 dossiers out of total 382 vacancies for the post of Librarian under Post Code 02/13 till 13.02.2018 due to various cases pending in different courts. The results of post code 02/13 were declared vide notice No. 445 dated 14.03.2016 and Notice No. 516 dated 27.07.2016. Thereafter, these results were revised in compliance with various court orders and the last result was declared on 13.02.2018 vide result Notice No. 610. The waiting panel for which was valid upto 09.11.2018 as per DSSSB. The DoE vide letter dated 05.04.2018 requested DSSSB to send dossiers against 37 unfilled vacant posts and informed about 18 candidates who were terminated/resigned/not joined in the same letter. At that time, it was not in practice to return the dossiers of terminated/resigned/not joined candidates to DSSSB. But later on it was decided in consultation with and approval of higher authorities to send such dossiers to DSSSB. Therefore, 16 such dossiers were sent back to DSSSB on 26.12.2018. The dossier of Sh. Dhananjay Kumar was also included in these 16 dossiers.
7. Sh. Manak Singh joined the post of Librarian but later on resigned from the post. So his dossier was not returned to DSSSB. Further, Sh. Amresh Kundu sought extension for joining which was allowed upto 15.06.2019. However, he did not join and his candidature was cancelled on 12.07.2019 and his dossier was returned to DSSSB on 24.07.2019.
8. Although, it was not in practice to return the dossiers to DSSSB, however, the Department intimated the DSSSB well in time vide letter dated 05.04.2018 about unfilled vacancies and requested to fill up maximum possible candidates in the interest of students.
9. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 16.06.2021 submitted that DoE and DSSSB are contradictory in their statements about the declaration of last result. The DoE stated that the last result notice No. 610 was declared on 13.02.2018. However, DSSSB declared the last result notice No. 747 on 16.01.2019. So the wait list should be valid till 16.01.2020 as per Govt. of NCT of Delhi letter No. F.No.1(192) DSSSB/P&P/13/5653-72 dated 13.06.2013. It was further submitted that the Result Notice 747 dated 16.01.2019 is in continuation of result notice No. 445 dated 14.03.2016 and subsequent Result Notice No. 516 dated 27.07.2016 Result No. 597 dated 09.11.2017 and Result Notice No. 610 dated 13.02.2018. It is evident from these result numbers that the recruitment process was going on for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13, Advt. No. 01/13. Then, how can the validity of Waitlist expire when the last result was declared on 16.01.2019.
10. Considering the replies of the DSSSB, DoE and the complaint & rejoinder of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 08.07.2021. Respondent No. 1 being User Department in the instant case was directed to ascertain the fact that whether the post of Librarian in the Post Code 02/13 under UR/OH category (Advertisement No. 01/13) was still vacant/existing or not. Similarly, Respondent No. 2 was also directed to ascertain if the complainant was qualified age-wise on the actual closure of the post code.
11. DoE vide letter dated 15.07.2021 informed that the DoE had sent requisition of 382 vacant posts of Librarian which were advertised vide Advertisement No. 01/13 under Post Code 02/13. Further, DoE has apprised the unfilled vacancies for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13 to DSSSB vide letter dated 05.04.2018 so that the dossiers of the candidates waiting in panel can be forwarded to the Education Department. The Panel was valid till 09.11.2018. However, appointment process for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13 was closed on 05.06.2018 and unfilled vacancies were returned to the user department as no suitable candidate was available in their respective categories i.e. 18 (UR-06(PH-HH), OBC-03(PH-HH), SC-01(PH-HH) and ST-08 including (PH-HH). Further, the unfilled vacancies were carried forward in subsequent requisitions sent to DSSSB which were advertised vide advertisement No. 02/14 and 04/20. It was further added that it was not feasible to accommodate the aforesaid candidate under post code 02/13 at this stage, as the recruitment process under the post code 02/13 had already been closed and the vacancies carried forward.
12. During the hearing on 27.07.2021, the Court observed that validity of the post of Librarian in UR/OH category was up to 09.11.2018, however as confirmed by the Education Department vide their letter dated 15.07.2021 that the appointment process of the subject post of Librarian under Post Code 02/13 was closed on 05.06.2018 itself and the unfilled vacancies were returned to the user department as no suitable candidate was available in respective categories. DSSSB, Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 18.09.2018 and 27.07.2021 had confirmed that the name of Ms. Anju Rani existed in the wait list/panel (at Sl. No. 1) and for which validity was upto 09.11.2018. Thus, how the appointment process for the particular post was closed by Education Department before the validity date.
13. DSSSB vide its letter dated 27.07.2021 submitted the status report reiterating its earlier submission. It was further submitted that the complainant filed an OA No. 2330/2018 in the CAT. In compliance of the order of Hon’ble CAT dated 01.06.2018, the candidature of Ms. Anju Rani, the complainant was thoroughly considered, examined and not found admissible and hence rejected. A reasoned speaking order dated 17.09.2018 was issued in the matter.
14. This court took into account the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in similarly placed case in OA No. 243/2021, Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary, DSSSB, SDMC and North DMC. Relevant Para 8 & 9 of the said order is reproduced below:-
Para-8: “if one takes into account, the very objective underlying the preparation and maintenance of waitlist, it is only to avoid the possibility of the post remaining vacant even after the selection process was concluded. The selecting agency has to make huge efforts to filter the candidates and then publish the select list. If for any reason, a selected candidates do not join, the looser will not be just the candidate or the selecting agency, but the user department, and thereby public at large. Once the selection process in this case was spread over seven years, counting of a day this way or that was should not make much difference, particularly when the applicant is a candidate with physical disability. We are of the view that the existing vacancy of the post of ALO reserved in favor of PH category can be offered to the applicant, who is next in the merit.
Para-9: We therefore, allow the OA and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as ALO against the vacancy reserved in favor of PH category after due verification, by treating that the waitlist was alive, when the requisition was received. On being appointed, the applicant shall hold the office prospectively, without any benefit anterior to the date of appointment. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the dated of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.”
15. After going through the submissions of the complainant, respondents and due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the respondents to do the needful in this case on the similar lines as ordered by Hon’ble CAT in the OA No. 243/2021, Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. (Copy enclosed)
16. The case is closed with the above recommendation and action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.
17. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 10th day of September, 2021.
Encl: As above
