CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH

MA 1192/2018

OA 1062/2018

Reserved on 14.12.2018

Pronounced on 19.12.2018

Hon’ble Mr. K.N.Shrivastava, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)

Ranjeet Singh,

S/o Sh. Pothi Lal Jatav,

Aged about 30 years,

R/o Village-Adarsh Colony,

Designation: employed(private hospital)

Mandryal Road, Shikar Ganj,

Rajasthan-322241.

Also at: presently residing at

Quarter No. C-11, Gate No. 9,

G.B.Pant Hospital, J.L.N.Marg,

New Delhi.

… Applicant

(By Advocate: Ms. Pallavi Awasthi for Dr. Vijender

Mahandiya.

VERSUS

1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board

FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,

Delhi-11302

Through its Chairman

2. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi

Through its Chief Secretary,

New Secretariat, I.P. Estate,

New Delhi.

... Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Jgdish N.)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):

Heard Ms. Ms. Pallavi Awasthi for Dr. Vijender Mahandiya,

counsel for applicant and Mr.Jagdish N. counsel for respondents,

perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the

parties.

OA 1062/2018

2

2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following

reliefs:

“ a) A direction to the Respondent No.1 for considering

the applicant’s candidature for his selection to the

post of Staff Nurse under post code 77/09 and post

code 75/09.

b) A direction commanding the Respondent No.1 to treat

the applicant as SC for grant of reservation benefits

and further direct the respondent to issue joining

letter to the applicant for joining his duty and to

grant all consequential benefits.

c) A direction commanding the Respondent No.1 to pay

the costs of this petition to the applicants.

d)

Any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal

may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice.”

3. The relevant facts of the case are that applicant had applied for

the post of Staff Nurse in response to the advertisement No. 4/2009

post code no.77/09 and 75/09 under Scheduled Caste category. In the

written examination he had secured 71 marks out of 200 and that cut

off marks for the Scheduled Caste category was 71 marks. However,

he learnt that no appointment letter was issued to him because he is

Scheduled Caste not of Delhi but of outside Delhi. He made several

representations. He has approached the Tribunal on 27.02.2018. In so

far as delay is concerned, the applicant has filed MA 1192/2018.

OA 1062/2018

3

MA 1192/2018

This MA has been filed by the applicant for seeking condonation

of delay in filing the OA. We find that the matters pertain to selection

against the advertisement of 2009 and the OA no.1062/2018 has been

filed on 27.02.1018. He has not given day-to-day explanation for

delay. He has simply relied upon similar OAs bearing no 1687/2011,

1124/2013 and 3304/2013 and 1530/2015. He has also relied upon

reply to RTI application filed by some other persons.

2. The counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the

process of appointment started with respect to the above said

advertisement of 2009 has long been over. As such it is a stale case

hit by delay and laches and on that ground they vehemently contend

that application be dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. The counsel for the applicant has brought to our notice the

following portion of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on

15.11.2017 in the case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Delhi

Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors. (OA No.

3457/2015 and others OA) and para 8 which states as follows:

“.... This principle needs to be applied in service matters more

emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court

from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons

should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be

that merely because other similarly