Strict adherence to recruitment rules is essential; age disqualification and lack of proper experience certification preclude valid claims in selection processes.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The Petitioner invokes Article 226 challenging the recruitment process initiated by Respondent No. 3 for the post of Librarian pursuant to the advertisement dated 31^st May, 2018, and the consequential selection and appointment of Respondent No. 5. The grievance is that the Petitioner’s long service as a part-time Librarian in the same institution was not given experience weightage, and that the vacancy advertised as “01 (UR)” was ultimately filled as a person with disability vacancy without a clear disclosure that the Librarian post itself was so earmarked. On these premises, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the selection and appropriate consequential directions.

Facts

2. The Petitioner was engaged by Respondent No. 3 as a temporary part- time Librarian with effect from 23^rd April, 2006 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 3,500 per month, revised from time to time. She claims that the school continued to utilise her services for several years with periodic “occasional breaks”. She also states that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category.

3. Respondent No. 3 is an aided school run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. As pleaded in the counter affidavit, the GNCTD funds 95% of the salary of sanctioned staff (and allied heads such as LTC and medical expenditure), while the remaining expenditure is met by the society. The school asserts that part-time and temporary staff are paid from its own funds because staffing needs exceed the sanctioned strength.

4. On 31^st May, 2018, Respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement for several posts. One vacancy was reflected as “Librarian: 01 (UR)”. The advertisement also indicated that four posts in Group ‘B’ posts had been identified for persons with disabilities, and that age and qualifications would be as per the recruitment rules applicable to Delhi Government aided schools.

5. The Petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement. She states that she was informed that her past experience in the school would not be counted for selection. In July, 2018, she approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The Commission recorded that she had rendered long service in the institution and referred to the Directorate of Education, ["DoE"] order dated 26^th February, 2014 on experience weightage, recommending that the rule position be applied while considering her candidature.

6. The Petitioner was called for interview. The interviews for the relevant posts were concluded by 17^th December, 2018 by the Staff Selection Committee, and the Managing Committee approved the recommendations in its meeting dated 27^th December, 2018 with participation of representatives deputed by the DoE. The result placed the Petitioner at Serial No. 15 with total marks of 47 and recorded her as “overage”. Respondent No. 5 secured 54.2 marks and was selected, described as a person with disability candidate.

Petitioner’s contentions

7. Ms. Aditi Gupta (DHCLSC), counsel for the Petitioner, argues that the Petitioner is a meritorious candidate having qualifications of graduation including B. Lib and M. Lib. She was duly appointed by the Respondents as a temporary part time librarian w.e.f. 23^rd April, 2006. She submits that the Petitioner has been treated unfairly and not given any marks on account of her experience of 12 years of service.