DEEPIKA Vs. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB), THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, FC-18 KARKARDOOMA INSTITUTIONAL AREA, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, in this case, had applied for a job in response to the advertisement in Employment News dated 1 -7 September 2007 through which the Respondent No.1 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) had called applications for the posts of Auxiliary Nurse/Midwife for Municipal Corporation of Delhi, by stating the number of vacancies, essential qualifications etc. as follows: - AUXILIARY NURSE/MIDWIFE, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Post Code -07/2007 NUMBER OF VACANCIES - 100(UR -50,OBC -27,SC -15,ST -08) Essential Qualifications (i) Matric pass from a recognized University/Board/School or equivalent. ii) Qualified Midwife registered with Nursing Council of India as Auxiliary Nurse/Midwife. Desirable: (i) Professional experience in Government or Semi Government Hospitals, Nursing Home or Welfare Centre. (ii) Working knowledge of Hindi. Pay Scale: Rs.4000 -6000/ - Group C Period of Probation: 2 years Age Limit between 18 and 27 years (Relaxable for SC/ST -05 years, OBC -03 years).

(2.) THE applicant before us is aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in rejecting her candidature for the posts as advertised above, and has sought reliefs as follows: - 8(i)set aside and quash the Respondents decision/action Annexure A of rejecting the applicants candidature and extend the benefits of consideration for appointment as ANM as done in case of Monika Annexure B similar situate persons, deeming the qualifications/post of MPHW as replacement for the post of ANM in terms of Kartar Singhs Committees recommendations, so accepted by the Govt. of India and also in terms of Delhi High Court judgment in Lajwanti vs. GNCT case. (ii)direct/command the Respondents to declare the applicants result and appoint her as Auxiliary Nurse/Midwife, ANM, Gr. Rs.4000 -6000 from the date other candidates of the same selection group, have been appointed with all consequential benefits of pay protection etc. (iii)any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the applicant alongwith heavy costs against the Respondents, in the interest of justice.

(3.) THE applicant had filed this Original Application on 19.09.2011 by annexing as the impugned order Annexure -A (page -18), which is an information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act,2005, supplied to Shri Mahaveer Singh, the father of the applicant, through RTI Diary No. 1652 dated 10.08.2011, by the office of the Respondent No.1. This reply does not give the details of the questions, which the applicant has filed separately at Annexure A -3 (pages 23 & 24) of the OA, signed by her father, in reply to which this impugned information was supplied. In support of her contention, the applicant has relied upon the judgment order in the case of Monika vs. Delhi Subordinate Services, Selection Board & Others, decided on 09.09.2009 in OA No. 1248/2009, a copy of which has been filed by her at pages 19 & 20 of the OA. Apparently, that case also was decided on the basis of an RTI information reply obtained by Ms. Monika, the applicant of that OA, which information reply the present applicant has filed as Annexure A -4 dated 05.02.2009.