RAJBIR KHATRI Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated October 10, 2011 passed in OA No.3271/2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) whereby the application of petitioner for appointment to the post of Driver with DTC has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts relevant for deciding the present petition are as under:- Respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ,,the DTC) advertised 10000 posts of Driver through Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in short referred to as 'the DSSSB) in the year 2008. Out of 10000 posts, 4303 were earmarked for candidates belonging to unreserved (UR) category and out of 4303 posts mentioned hereinabove, 430 posts were earmarked for ex-servicemen category. Petitioner applied in the general category candidate for the said post. A written test was conducted by the DSSSB on August 12, 2008. Petitioner qualified the said written test. Thereafter, respondent appeared in the skill and driving test on August 20, 2008. Petitioner also qualified the same. Final result was declared by the respondent on September 30, 2008 wherein petitioner did not find his name. The petitioner made various representations to the respondent but he did not receive any response. Thereafter, he sought the information under Right to Information Act, 2005 in order to know reasons for non inclusion of his name in the merit list. Respondent - DSSSB gave him information on January 12, 2009 disclosing that petitioner had secured 55 marks out of 100 marks and the last unreserved candidate who was appointed, has also got the same marks. It was also mentioned that the said candidate has been offered appointed and preferred over the petitioner because he was elder/senior to him in age. Respondent-DTC informed him that only 3859 candidates have been selected through DSSSB in general category. As per petitioner, 14 posts are still lying vacant and these posts were not filled up by the respondent-DTC despite availability of candidates.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had cleared the written test as well as skill test and has also secured 55 marks out of 100 marks. It is submitted that candidates who have secured 55 marks out of 100 marks have been selected. It is further submitted that few vacancies are still available with the respondent-DTC and there is no justification in denying appointment to him. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner also possess Heavy Motor Vehicle Licence for the last three years prior to closing date of submission of application, as such there was no justification in denying appointment to him.