ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a) To declare the action of Respondent No. 3 in not sending the dossier of the applicant to Respondent No. 4 for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer/Zonal Revenue Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Post Code 67/12, despite declaring him selected on the basis of his merit, as illegal, and to issue appropriate directions to Respondent No. 3 to send the dossier of the applicant to Delhi Jal Board for his appointment as Administrative Officer/Zonal Revenue Officer, Delhi Jal Board with all consequential benefits.

b) To declare the action of the respondents in including the name of Respondent No. 5 in the select list dated 14.03.2019 for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer and keeping his candidature alive as illegal, and to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer/Zonal Revenue Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Post Code 67/12, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

c) To award costs of the proceedings; and

d) To pass any other order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present O.A. has been filed challenging the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 3, in not forwarding the applicant’s dossier for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer/Zonal Revenue Officer, Delhi Jal Board, despite the applicant being duly qualified on merit and next in line under the OBC category.

2.1. Learned counsel contended that an ineligible candidate (Roll No. 86003248) was wrongly included in the select list dated 14.03.2019 and continued therein for an inordinate period, and even after cancellation of his candidature in January 2021 and specific recommendation by the user department, the applicant’s rightful claim has been ignored.

2.2. Learned counsel argued that in view of the aforesaid facts the respondents have acted in a discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable manner in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, particularly when vacancies admittedly remain unfilled and the applicant had timely raised objections and pursued representations. Therefore, the applicant seeks directions to declare such action of the respondents as illegal, to consider and appoint the applicant against the available vacancies, and to grant all consequential benefits.

3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the present O.A. is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed, as the applicant admittedly did not fall within the zone of selection and was merely placed in the waiting panel after securing 174 marks, which was below the last selected OBC candidate who secured 174.75 marks.

3.1. Learned counsel contended that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board had already completed the recruitment process by provisionally nominating all 05 candidates against the advertised vacancies vide Result Notice dated 14.03.2019, and the same was expressly made subject to verification by the user department, i.e., Delhi Jal Board.

3.2. Learned counsel further contended that the waiting panel, as per the declared policy and terms of the result notice, remained valid only up to 13.03.2020, and admittedly, the dossiers of certain candidates were returned by the user department much after the expiry of the said panel, i.e., in January 2021.

3.3. Learned counsel argued that in terms of the uniformly applicable policy, no further nomination could be made from an expired panel, and mere inclusion in the waiting list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment.

4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, i.e., Del