Deepak Kumar v. Delhi Transco Ltd & Anr

VEENA BIRBAL, J. July 9th, 2010 ssb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: July 9th, 2010 + W.P.(C) 10535/2009 Deepak Kumar ..... Petitioner Through:Mr.Apurb Lal with Ms.Alka & Mr.Daleep Singh, Advocates -versus- Delhi Transco Ltd & anr ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aman Sinha, Adv. for R-1 Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for R-2. CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes Veena Birbal, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following directions:- "(1) direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from overage category; (2) declare the result of part-II papers of the petitioner for ends of justice and (3) pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 2. The facts leading to the filing of present petition are as under:- The petitioner had passed matriculation examination in the year 1997. In May, 2002, he had passed senior secondary examination from National Open School. In 2005, petitioner did Diploma in Electric Engineering from Chhotu Ram Rural Institute of Technology, affiliated to Board of Technical Education, Delhi. Respondent no.1 i.e Delhi Transco Ltd requested respondent no.2 i.e Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in short referred to as `DSSSB') for selection of candidates for various posts including the post of Assistant Electric Fitter to which the petitioner had applied. Respondent no.2 i.e DSSSB advertised various posts for appointment in respondent no.1 in Employment News dated 7/13th June, 2008 (Annexure P-3 Rozgar Samachar Page 16 of paper book). Petitioner applied for the post of "Assistant Electric Fitter" wherein age prescribed was 35 years as per advertisement. Petitioner submitted his application on 7th July, 2008 along with all necessary documents and was issued `Admit card'. On 8th March, 2009, petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by respondent no.2 i.e DSSSB. In July, 2009, complete merit of short listed candidates was displayed wherein the name of the petitioner was at sr.no.60. It was shown as `overage'. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner has been wrongly declared as `over age' and his result has been wrongly withheld by respondent no.2. It is contended that as per advertisement, petitioner was not overage. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner's name may be removed from `overage' category and result of Part II examination be declared. 4. The respondent no.2 i.e DSSSB has filed counter affidavit opposing the present petition. The stand of respondent no.2 is that two requisitions for filling up 69 vacancies of Assistant Electric Fitter were sent by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 along with recruitment rules. The same were advertised by respondent no.2 in leading newspapers of English, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu as well as Employment News. The age limit for the post of `Assistant Electric Fitter' was published as "Not exceeding 25 years" which was as per requisitions send by the user department i.e respondent no.1. However, there was relaxation in upper age limit for SC, ST as well as OBC category which is not relevant for disposal of the present writ petition as the petitioner has not applied in that category. The stand of respondent no.2 is that inadvertently the maximum age for recruitment has been published in some Hindi newspaper as "not exceeding 35 years" instead of 25 years. The stand of respondent no.2 is that in English newspaper, the age given for the post of `Assistant Electric Fitter' was "not exceeding 25 years". Further, as per recruitment rules of respondent no.1, the age given is `not exceeding 25 years' for general category. It is contended that as the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as regards age is concerned, he has rightly been not consid