Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
Pushpa Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Bhatia & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3460 of 2017 and CM APPL.15141 of 2017 (stay)
Decided On : 24-04-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Kumar Jain
The independent nature of advertisements and separate merit lists preclude the consideration of marks obtained in one exam against a rejected candidature for another advertisement.
Headnote:
Exemption - Central Administrative Tribunal - - The court discussed the provisions of the advertisement No.02/2012 and No.01/13, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature, and the directions issued by the Tribunal in its order dated 18.01.2016. The court highlighted the independent nature of the advertisements, the separate merit lists, and the lack of substantive right accrued in favor of the petitioner for consideration of her marks obtained in the exam for advertisement no. 2/12 against advertisement no. 1/13.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her candidature for a teaching post and contended that the respondents failed to follow the directions of the Tribunal's judgment/order dated 18.01.2016.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for advertisement No.01/13 was justified, and no violation of the order dated 18.01.2016 occurred.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's candidature, the consideration of her marks obtained in the exam, and the alleged violation of the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the independent nature of the advertisements and the separate merit lists precluded the consideration of the petitioner's marks obtained in the exam for advertisement no. 2/12 against advertisement no. 1/13.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Deepa Sharma, J.
CM APPL. 15142 of 2017 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3460/2017 and CM APPL.15141/2017 (stay)
1. Vide this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.03.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), whereby her contempt petition (CP No.548/2016) was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied in response to the advertisement No.02/2012 for the Post of TGT (Code No.109/2012) and she was issued the E-Admit card No. 45000830. Later on, she also applied for the said Post published in advertisement no.01/13 - Post Code no.7/13. Her application for Post Code No. 07/13 was rejected on the ground of her “not having the requisite qualification as on closing date”. The common examination of both the Post Code Nos. 109/12 and 07/13 was held on 28.12.2014. The petitioner had appeared in the examination held on 28.12.2014 by using the admit card issued in respect of advertisement No.2/2012. Her contention was that at the time of downloading of the admit card, a message was displayed on the website of the respondent that for common candidates who had applied against both advertisements of 2012 and 2013, the admit card will display only OARS applied post code 2/12 but such candidates will get benefits for all the post code applied at the time of result generation. She learnt that her candidature for Post Code 07/13 in Advertisement no.1/13 was rejected. She challenged her rejection of candidature against Post Code 07/13 vide Original Application No. 203/2015. When the results were declared, the petitioner-although had secured 103.25 marks in the said exam, which was more than the last selected candidate in the merit list of advertisement no.1/2013, yet her name did not appear in the merit list of advertisement no.1/2013. She claimed the following reliefs in her O.A.-
“In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent to include the name of applicant in the list of eligible candidates released/uploaded on website of respondent no.1 for examination for the post TGT Hindi Female (Post code No.7/13) already held on 28.12.2014 and consider the candidature of applicant for the post code 07/13 under advertisement no.01/13 besides post 109/12 under advertisement no. 02/12 and any other or further order/relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in favour of the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Disposing the said application, the Tribunal issued the following directions vide its order dated 18.01.2016-
“30. Therefore, both the OAs are partly allowed, and the respondents are directed to call the applicants of these two OAs for verification of their documents to verify their actual qualifications as possessed by them as on the last date for filling up of the application forms for the years 2012, as well as 2013, and to consider their candidature, and if their qualifications are found to be fulfilled as on the last date of receipt of those applications, as per the Notifications issued for the respective years 2012 & 2013, by the abovementioned Advertisements, to allow their candidature for the relevant posts.”
4. As per the directions contained in the Tribunal’s order dated 18.01.2016, the petitioner was called upon for verification of her documents vide letter dated 23.06.2016. Her candidature for Advertisement No.01/13 for Post Code 07/13 for the post TGT, however, was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 07.10.2016 on the ground that the petitioner did not have the valid admit card. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Contempt Petition bearing CP No. 548/2016 in which the impugned order was passed. Vide impugned order the Tribunal has, after considering all the contentions of the petitioner, dismissed the said contempt petition.
5. The petitioner has challenge
