RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. DELHI SUBORDINATE SELECTION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for production of records by the respondents with regard to the process of appointment to the post of Primary Teachers which was held in pursuance to the advertisement no. 01/2002 published on 13. 5. 2002. It has been further prayed that the respondent no. 1/delhi Subordinate Selection Board (DSSSB) (hereinafter referred to as Board) be directed to recall the order of surrender of the vacancies for the post of Primary Teachers to be filled in by OBC candidates and direct the appointment of the petitioners against one such vacancy each on account of their having obtained the qualifying marks in the OBC category.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent no. 1 issued an advertisement bearing No. 01/2002 on 13. 5. 2002 in the various National dailies in Delhi inviting applications for the post of Primary Teachers in the schools being run by respondent no. 2. The total vacancies shown in the said advertisement were 717 out of which 193 were to be filled up in the category of OBC. The case of the petitioners, who are three in number, is that they had applied for the appointment to the post of primary Teachers in OBC category in respect of which result was declared on 24. 12. 2003. It is stated that only 120 OBC candidates holding the certificates issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi were declared to be successful. The case of the petitioners is that all three of them are holding the OBC certificates issued by the competent authority of the Government of NCT of delhi but despite this they were not considered for the appointment to the post of Primary Teachers by the respondents under mistaken belief of their having not submitted the OBC certificates issued by the Government of NCT of delhi. It is further alleged that vide order dated 05. 2. 2008 result of four more candidates issued out of which two were OBCs.

(3.) THE learned counsel has contended that the petitioner learnt about the factum of their being ignored for the appointment only through the information obtained by the petitioner in the year 2008 in pursuance to their queries furnished under the RTI Act, 2003 where upon he has without any loss of time chosen to file the present writ petition. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that at the time when examination was held in respect of the post in question, there was no minimum marks fixed to be attained by any of the candidates so as to enable them to get appointment to the said post and therefore the appointment to the petitioner cannot be denied.