KULDEEP SINGH Vs. D S S S B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise an important question which will have an impact on every citizen of India aspiring for Government appointment through the aegis of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in brief 'DSSSB'). In the present case we are concerned with the Advertisement carried in Sundry National Dailies in respect of the Miscellaneous Posts-2002 in which the User/Requisitioning Department is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Advertisement discloses that there were 421 vacancies to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Unreserved (UR) category. The Petitioners before the Court belong to this category. The Examinations were conducted on 27.10.2002. A 'Merit List' which I consider to be more in the nature of the Examination Result was thereupon prepared by the DSSSB in respect of each and every candidate who had appeared in that Examination. The Advertisement did not contain any stipulation pertaining to the minimum qualifying marks that should be obtained by every aspirant. It did not also contain any clause indicating the maximum time limit for exhausting the vacancies envisaged in that Examination.

(2.) The case of the DSSSB is that since there were 421 vacancies in the unreserved category, they had drawn a line after the 421st candidate who incidentally had obtained 86 marks along with several others. So far as the DSSSB is concerned with this exercise, the vacancies stood exhausted. This, however, is not the view of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which appears to have communicated with the DSSSB on more than one occasion asking it to forward names of 66 candidates as late as on 04.02.2004 followed by a reminder on 15.06.2004. In the last communication, the number of posts mentioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi have increased to ninety. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi states that this increase related only to the Examination-2002 but this assertion is disputed by the DSSSB. This controversy does not need to be resolved today, since it is my understanding that what needs to be set down is the procedure which should be followed in all Examinations so as to ensure that the candidates do not receive a setback to their legitimate expectations, and there is no violation of the equality imperative.

(3.) It has already been observed that no minimum marks have been stipulated for the Examination which is indeed a salutary condition. Across the Bar it is accepted that there would not be legal infirmity in specifying minimum qualifying marks. As is always to be expected from the list of 421 candidates, it appears that some persons have not sought employment. It is also conceivable that on checking the educational qualifications at the last stage, it may have been found that some of the persons who had come within the so-called 'zone of consideration' (in the present case-421 candidates) did not possess the necessary qualifications and would be disentitled for appointment. The central question that arises, therefore, is how these vacancies should be dealt with by the DSSSB as well as the User Department.