DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD Vs. TAPAN NEERAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 22.05.2013 in O.A. No. 271/2012. The impugned order had directed the appointment of the respondent (hereafter called "the candidate") against vacancies that existed in the department. The concerned department which had declared the vacancies and in respect of whose posts the appointments were directed, is the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the GNCTD"). At the outset, this Court notices that the GNCTD has not impugned the order of the CAT.

(2.) On the contrary, apparently the GNCTD has accepted the decision of the CAT and is in the process of appointing the candidates evident from its letters dated 12.08.2013 and 12.02.2014 produced before the Court. The candidate had approached the CAT, stating that he had participated in a selection process for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Welfare Officer Grade-II in the GNCTD. This was pursuant to the requisitions made in the years 2005 and 2007. The respondent candidate secured 140 marks and appeared as an unreserved category candidate. It is not in dispute that at that point of time, the GNCTD had neither segregated or earmarked specific vacancies nor reserved any posts, including the post of Welfare Officer Grade-II under the Disabilities Act. Consequently, no reservation was indicated in either the requisition or the advertisement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the DSSSB contends that the impugned order is erroneous in law because it, in effect, has directed the carvingout of reservation when no such reservation was indicated either in the requisition or in the advertisement. Learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Babita Pathak and Ors. v. High Court of Delhi and Ors., 2013 135 DRJ 382. It was submitted that unless a reservation is expressly notified for a particular year, a candidate who chooses to apply and participate in the selection process without protesting against the absence of such notification, cannot be allowed to claim the benefit of reservation or vacancies which, according to him, should have been notified in the first instance.