* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3606/2019 SMT. JYOTI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yashpal Rangi with Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Mr. M. D. Sajid and Mr.

Praveen Kaushik, Advs.

versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCT with Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Ms. Tania Ahlawat and Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh S K, Advs. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 06.04.2026 OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. Through the present petition, the Petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order dated 08.01.2019, $~10, passed in O.A. No. 4309/2016, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal2 rejected the Petitioner’s prayer for appointment on the post of assistant teacher in OBC Category against the 37 unfilled vacancies.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for disposal of the present petition would show that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) issued

1 “impugned order” hereinafter

2 “Tribunal” hereinafter

Advertisement No. 02/2012 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), Post Code 101/12. A total of 554 vacancies were notified, out of which 226 were reserved for the Other Backward Classes³ category.

3. The Petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, participated in the selection process. The result was declared on 24.06.2015. The Petitioner secured 131.75 marks, whereas the cut-off for the OBC category was fixed at 132.25 marks by the Respondent.

4. Out of the 226 vacancies reserved for the OBC category, 220 candidates were initially selected. Subsequently, vide notice dated 05.04.2016, the selection of 10 candidates were cancelled due to not reporting for document verification. Some candidates were also shifted to the unreserved category, leading to further vacancies.

However, no fresh cut-off list was issued by the Respondent.

5. Being aggrieved by the non-issuance of a fresh cut-off, the Petitioner herein filed O.A. No. 4309/2016 before the learned Tribunal, seeking a direction to the Respondent to issue a revised cut-

off list for the remaining vacancies.

6. During the pendency of the said O.A., the results were revised, vide notice dated 30.12.2016, and a candidate with identical marks to the Petitioner was called for document verification. The Petitioner thereafter amended the O.A., alleging discrimination in the selection process and seeking a direction for appointment against the unfilled vacancy.

7. As per the notification dated 13.06.2013 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, a waitlist was prepared to the extent of 10% of the notified vacancies. The Petitioner secured 131.75 marks and notably, the last candidate in the OBC waitlist secured 131.75 marks.

8. However, the Petitioner was not included in the waitlist on account of her lower position in the merit ranking, determined on the basis of date of birth, as older candidates with identical marks were ranked above her.

9. Thereafter, the final result was declared vide notice dated 30.06.2018, and the recruitment process for Post Code 101/12 was closed on 04.07.2018.

10. Upon such closure, admittedly, 37 seats in the OBC category remained unfilled as the waitlist was exhausted. Before the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner sought appointment against the said unfilled vacancies. The Respondent, however, stated that the waiting list had been prepared up to 10% of the notified vacancies in terms of the governing notification and stood exhausted. It was further stated that the Petitioner, though securing the same marks, was placed below the last selected candidate in the OBC waiting panel on account of her date of birth and, therefore, did not find place in the waiting list.

11. The learned Tribunal, after considering the material on record,

held that the existence of unfilled vacancies does not give any right to appointment, as mere inclu