Recruiting agency cannot unilaterally cancel reserve panel despite user department's substitution request for unfilled vacancy; next meritorious candidate entitled to appointment consideration with notional benefits.

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

1.In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondent No.2 (DSSSB) not recommending the name of next eligible candidate as per merit against the unfilled notified post of Data Entry Operator 'B'( post code 45/12) as per the request of NDMC i.e .. user department is totally illegal, is illegal and arbitrary and consequently pass an order directing the respondent No.2 to declare the result and f01ward the dossier of next selected candidate to the NDMC to the post of to Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' under Post code No.45/12 immediately.

ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent No.3 to consider the applicant being the next selected candidate under OBC category to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' under Post code No.45112 with all consequential benefits from due date i.e. from the date of appointment of batch mates.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-

2.1 The applicant applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2012 issued by Respondent No. 2 (DSSSB) in the year 2012 for appointment to various posts, including the post of Data Entry Operator Grade ‘B’, Post Code 45/12, in New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). The applicant fulfilled all eligibility criteria and applied under the OBC category.

2.2 The applicant was allotted Roll No. 11152100054 and appeared in the written examination held on 22.11.2019, wherein he secured 76 marks. The result was declared vide notice dated 05.03.2020, and the cut-off marks for OBC candidates were 70.50, as a result of which the applicant was shortlisted for the next stage of selection.

2.3 Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the PET/Skill Test on 26.02.2021, the result of which was declared on 09.04.2021, wherein the applicant was again declared successful. Subsequently, 12 OBC candidates, including the applicant, were shortlisted for uploading of e-dossier during the period 13.04.2021 to 27.04.2021.

2.4 Respondent No. 2 declared the final result vide notice dated 28.06.2021, recommending four OBC candidates against four OBC vacancies, while clearly stating that scrutiny of qualifications was to be undertaken by the user department i.e., NDMC.

2.5 Out of the four recommended OBC candidates, only two candidates were found eligible and joined. One candidate was later adjusted against the UR category, and for the remaining vacancies, supplementary result dated 26.05.2022 was issued, recommending three additional OBC candidates.

2.6 Out of these three candidates, two candidates joined, whereas one candidate, namely Shri Ajay Chillar, refused to join vide letter dated 13.09.2022, resulting in one post remaining unfilled.

2.7 Consequently, NDMC vide letter dated 18.10.2022 requested DSSSB to sponsor another candidate against the unfilled vacancy. The said letter was supplied to the applicant under the RTI Act vide communication dated 13.01.2023. Despite the said request, DSSSB did not recommend the next eligible candidate.

2.8 The applicant, being the next candidate in order of merit, made several representations dated 22.04.2023, 24.04.2023, and 04.05.2023, but no response was received from the respondents.

2.9 Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not sponsoring the next eligible candidate des