W. P. (C.) No. 13583 of 2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.13583/2009 % Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 Govt of NCT of Delhi …. Petitioner Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate. Versus Moni Singh Krotia …. Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner, Government of NCT of Delhi challenges the order dated 24th April, 2009 in O.A No.671/2003 titled Moni Singh Krotia v. Government of NCT of Delhi allowing the original application of the respondent and holding that the respondent no.1 had been successful in the selection for appointment to the post of O.T Technician in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and directing the petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 on the said post. The respondent No.1 had participated in the process of selection for the post of O.T.Technician in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- for 27 posts out of which 7 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes. The W. P. (C.) No. 13583 of 2009 Page 2 of 4 respondent No.1 was declared successful after the written test and he was placed at serial No.6 in the notifications published by the petitioners. The grievance of the respondent No.1 is that later on his name was deleted without any notice to him and in his place the name of respondent No.2 was substituted. The petitioners justified their action on the ground that the respondent No.2 had also participated in the process of selection and he had also scored 26 marks, equal to the marks obtained by the respondent No.1. The substitution of the name of the respondent No.2 was justified on the ground that the respondent No.2 is older to respondent No.1 as the date of birth of respondent No.2 is 25th June, 1975 whereas the date of birth of respondent No.1 is 18th November, 1975 and, therefore, the respondent No.2 had become entitled for selection in preference to respondent No.1. Regarding the publication of result and the notices given in the newspaper declaring respondent no.1 as successful and not declaring respondent no.2 as a successful candidate, it was contended on behalf of petitioners that it was on account of discrepancy which had occurred which came to the notice of the petitioner later on and so subsequently correction was made. Aggrieved by the act of the petitioners in substituting the name of the respondent no.1 with the respondent no.2, respondent no.1/applicant filed an original application before the Central W. P. (C.) No. 13583 of 2009 Page 3 of 4 Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which was allowed. The Tribunal while rejecting the pleas and contentions of the petitioners has categorically noted that the petitioners have failed to produce the answer sheet of the respondent No.2 or any other relevant document to show that he had scored 26 marks, marks equivalent to the marks of respondent No.1. Since the examination was conducted by Educational Consultants India Ltd, the marks scored by respondent no.2 must be in the result prepared by them which must have been sent to the petitioners. However, nothing had been produced by the petitioners. The petitioners not only did not produce the answer sheet of the respondent No.2 or the result prepared by the Educational Consultants India Ltd but also did not produce the files regarding selection of staff and the plea was that the original files have been misplaced. The Tribunal has noted that non availability of answer sheet, misplacement of mark list, non tracing the files including the noting could not have happened simultaneously and on account of any accident and this was mere to camouflage the substitution of the name of the respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 who is not even eligible according to the eligibility norms as he did not have the requisite experience and to justify the illegality committed by the petitioners. W. P. (C.) No. 13583 of 2009 Page 4 of 4 The Tribunal has also considered that respondent No.2 did not possess the required experience and, therefore, he was not even eligible for selection to the post of O.T.Technician. This has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has been carrying on the job of O.T.Technician for many years on a consolidated pay, therefore, the plea that respondent No.1 was not eligible had also been repelled. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to how the respondent no.1 was not eligible. The respondent no.1 was not only allowed to appear in the examination but he was declared successful and had also been placed at serial No.6. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 was not eligible cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for this Court to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 24th April, 2009. The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. JANUARY 21, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k’