WPC 2905/2011 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C)No. 2905/2011 DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION & ORS. ....Petitioners Through Ms. Zubeda Begum and Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocates. VERSUS SHRI SURAJ BHAN …..Respondent Through Mr. Sumit Chander and Mr. P Pankaj, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ORDER % 03.05.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1. Pursuant to requisition made by Directorate of Education, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, the petitioner, had advertised for filling up 10 vacancies for the post of PGT. Two of the vacancies were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC). WPC 2905/2011 Page 2 of 4 2. Suraj Bhan, the respondent applied and had disclosed his status as OBC. As he was already a Government employee, he was eligible for age relaxation. There is no dispute that the respondent is OBC and is also entitled to age relaxation. 3. In part-1 examination the respondent had secured 120 out of 200 marks and the last selected candidate in the OBC category has secured 93 marks out of 200. In view of the performance of the respondent in part-1 examination, he was issued admit card for part-2 examination. However, his part-2 examination result was not declared. The respondent obtained necessary information under Right to Information Act and thereafter filed OA No.283/2010 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 15th September, 2010. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was rightly not selected and disqualified as he had failed to comply with direction at serial No.8 in respect of missing or incorrect data in the admit card on the basis of which the respondent appeared in part-2 examination. The said instruction no.8 reads as under : WPC 2905/2011 Page 3 of 4 “…………if any candidate appearing for the examination finds that her/his name, reservation category, post name, post code, photo, signature missing or incorrect in his/her Admit Card, he/she should get it rectified by visiting the office of the Board on the dates, time and venue mentioned above. Any modification in the admit card at the examination centre will not be allowed…………” 5. It is admitted that the respondent’s name, reservation category, post name, post code, photo and signature were not missing or incorrect but in the admit card it was not mentioned that the respondent was Government servant or GO. A similar contention was also raised before the Tribunal and rightly rejected by the impugned order dated 15th September, 2010. Instruction no.8 mentioned above does not stipulate that the admit card should mention that the candidate was entitled to age relaxation, which was available to an existing departmental employee or Government servant. The respondent could not have presumed that the admit card should mention that he was eligible for age relaxation being a government servant or a departmental candidate. Disqualifying a candidate is a serious matter and has adverse and harsh consequences on a candidate who suffers. Clarity and preciseness was therefore required on the part of the WPC 2905/2011 Page 4 of 4 petitioner. The respondent could not have presumed that the admit card should have indicated that he was a government servant and therefore entitled to age relaxation. Besides we find that the stand of the petitioners is hyper technical. It may be also noticed that the admit card is prepared by the petitioner. The lapse, if any, was on the part of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE May 3, 2011 vld