ORDER

Per RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):

We have perused the records, and have heard Mr.M.R.Farooqui, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, and Mr.K.M.Singh, Ms.Anupama Bansal, Ms.Anita Pandey, and Mr.R.N.Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Respondent No.1-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an Advertisement No.004/2009 inviting applications from eligible persons for recruitment to different posts including the post of Teacher (Primary-Urdu) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, vide Post Code 69/09. The closing date for receipt of applications was 15.1.2010. As per the Advertisement, age relaxation was admissible to ‘Departmental employees –

up to 42 years of age (general), up to 47 years from SC/ST, having 03 years continuous service in the same line or allied cadres’. In response to the Advertisement, the applicants made applications. On the basis of admit cards issued to them by respondent no.1-DSSSB, they appeared in the recruitment examination. On 1.3.2014 respondent no.1-DSSSB published the result of the selected candidates, and a list of candidates whose candidatures were rejected for various reasons mentioned therein. In the list of candidates, whose candidatures were rejected, the names of the applicants were included, and the candidatures of the applicants were stated to have been rejected on the ground of their being ‘Overage’. Being aggrieved, the applicants made representations requesting respondent no.1-DSSSB to grant them age relaxation for their having worked on contract basis as Teachers under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. There being no response, O.A.No.1098 of 2014 was filed by them. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 5.5.2014, while disposing of O.A No. 1098 of 2014, directed respondent no.1-DSSSB to consider and decide the applicants’ representations by passing speaking orders and to communicate their decision to the applicants within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order dated 5.5.2014, ibid. In compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 5.5.2014, respondent no.1-DSSSB considered the applicants’ representations, but did not accede to the request made by the applicants. In the case of applicant no.1, respondent no.1-DSSSB issued order No.337 dated 1.8.2014, the relevant portion of which reads thus:

“Whereas in compliance of the judgment of Hon’ble CAT dated

05/05/2014, the case of Sh.Md.Tariq was again taken up and it is observed that MCD has provided vide letter No.A/ADE/TRC/Edu/HQ/2011/1476 dated 25/11/2011 a list of 347 contract teachers, who have worked in MCD, for the benefit of age relaxation in Post Code 69/09. On scrutiny of said list, the name of applicant Sh. Md. Tariq has not appeared in the list and therefore he is not entitled to the age benefits. According to date of Birth of applicant (i.e. 30/12/1979), he became Overage in OBC category. Hence the candidature of Sh.Md.Tariq was rejected.

Therefore, in view of the above factsm, Sh.Md.Tariq could not be considered for selection to the post of Teacher Primary (Urdu)

MCD, Post Code 69/09.”

In the case of applicant no.2, respondent-DSSSB issued order No.333 dated

17.7.2014, the relevant portion of which reads thus:

“Whereas in compliance of the judgment of Hon’ble CAT dated

05/05/2014, the case of Sh.Md.Shahnawaz Alam was again taken up and it is observed that MCD has provided vide letter No.A/ADE/TRC/Edu/HQ/2011/1476 dated 25/11/2011 a list of 347 contract teachers, who have worked in MCD, for the benefit of age relaxation in Post Code 69/09. On scrutiny of said list, the name of applicant Sh. Sh.Md.Shahnawaz Alam has not appeared in the list and therefore he is not entitled to the age benefits. According to date of Birth of applicant (i.e. 01/04/1976), he became Overage in UR category. Hence the candidature of Sh.Md. Sh.Md.Shahnawaz Alam was rejected.

Therefore, in view of the above facts, Sh. Sh.Md.Shahnawaz Alam could not be considered for selection to the post of