JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. The appellant has filed the present intra court appeal impugning an order dated 16.01.2017 (hereafter `the impugned order'), whereby the appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - W.P.(C) No. 7169/2011 captioned Shailendra Pathak v. Union of India & Ors. - was rejected.

2. The appellant had applied for the post of an Assistant Registrar reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) category persons pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.09.2009 issued by respondent no.2 (hereafter `Delhi University'). However, the appellant was not appointed to the said post as another candidate (respondent no.5), who had also applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.09.2009, in the same category, was placed higher in the order of merit.

3. The appellant claims that respondent no.5 was required to be adjusted against a vacancy to be filled by a candidate belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC), which was advertised on 13.04.2010. Respondent no.4 was appointed against the said vacancy reserved for OBC category. The appellant claims that respondent no.4 had secured higher marks than respondent no.3 who had been appointed against the vacancy in the General (Unreserved) category and therefore, was required to be appointed in the vacancy for the General category, thus, giving rise to a vacancy in the OBC category to be filled by respondent no.5.

4. The principal question to be addressed is whether respondent nos.4 and 5 are required to be adjusted against vacancies advertised for General and OBC categories respectively, which would result in a vacancy under the OH Category to be filled by the appellant.

THE FACTUAL CONTEXT AND THE CONTROVERSY

5. Delhi University had undertaken a special recruitment drive for Persons with Disabilities (PWD). It had issued an advertisement dated 30.09.2009, inviting applications for filling up nine posts by PWD category, including the post of an Assistant Registrar/Administrative Officer/Assistant Controller of Examination by an OH category person. In terms of the advertisement, the last date for submission of the applications was 27.10.2009.

6. The appellant amongst other candidates, including respondent no.5, applied to the post of Assistant Registrar pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.09.2009.

7. Subsequently, on 13.04.2010, Delhi University issued another advertisement inviting applications from candidates under various categories for filling up vacancies for various posts. The said advertisement included applications for filling up vacancies of the post of Assistant Registrar in two categories. One reserved for OBC category and the second in the Unreserved (UR) category.

8. Apparently, respondent nos.3 and 4 amongst other candidates applied for the appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.04.2010. Whilst, respondent no.3 being a General Category candidate applied under the UR category, respondent no.4 had applied for the post reserved for OBC candidate.

9. On 30.10.2010, a common written test was conducted by Delhi University for the selection and recruitment of the vacancies for the posts of Assistant Registrar (this included one General (UR) category and one reserved under OBC category for selection of candidates, who had applied pursuant to advertisement dated 13.04.2010. And, one for OH category candidates, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.09.2009). Pursuant to the written test conducted on the aforesaid date, a common list of qualified candidates was notified on 01.04.2011 by Delhi University. The qualified candidates including the appellant were interviewed on 23.04.2011 and thereafter, a list of candidates selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the UR, OBC and OH categories, was prepared. The same is set out below:

Category Name of selected candidateTotal marks of selected candidate (maximum 450)General (UR)Shri Gaurav Anand (Respondent No.3) 29

Click Here to Read the rest of this document