W.P.(C)12637/2009 Page 1 of 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 2nd May, 2011. + W.P.(C) 12637/2009 % KARTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Murari Tiwari with Ms. Priyanka Nayak, Advocates. Versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS .... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 4th June, 2006 inviting applications for the post of Art/Drawing Teachers in the department of the respondent no.1 had so applied under the reserved category. The petitioner relied upon a Scheduled Caste Certificate issued W.P.(C)12637/2009 Page 2 of 5 by the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held for the said purpose but in the result declared on 2nd September, 2007 the name of the petitioner did not find mention in the list of successful/selected candidates. The petitioner on 5th August, 2008 applied under the Right to Information Act and in response thereto learnt that though the marks secured by him were more than the marks of the last selected candidate in the reserved category but the petitioner was not selected owing to not having the requisite qualification. The petitioner contending that Directorate of College Education, Government of Rajasthan from where he had obtained a five year diploma, was amongst the list of recognized institutes, on or about 23rd September, 2009 filed this writ petition seeking mandamus to the respondents to declare the petitioner as successful in the competitive examination and to appoint the petitioner to the post of TGT Drawing Teacher in the respondent no.1. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the order dated 22nd September, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.383/2009 titled Sohan Ram Vs. Directorate of Education where also the question for consideration was W.P.(C)12637/2009 Page 3 of 5 whether the diploma in Art/Drawing from the Directorate of College Education, Government of Rajasthan, is amongst the courses recognized for appointment in the department of the respondent no.1. The respondent GNCTD in that case was directed to consider the petitioner therein for appointment as an Art Teacher without insisting upon the Institute from which the petitioner therein had qualified being duly recognized. The counsel for the petitioner thus contends that the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. 3. The counsel for the respondents though not controverting the order in Sohan Ram (supra) contends that the petitioner in the present case is not entitled to the same relief because he approached the Court after nearly two years of the declaration of the result. It is contended that the writ petition was filed after one year from the information furnished to the petitioner. It is contended that all the posts in pursuance to the examination have since been filled up and there is no vacancy for which the petitioner can even be considered. It is further stated that no panel is maintained and if the fresh vacancy accrues, fresh advertisement inviting applications shall be issued. W.P.(C)12637/2009 Page 4 of 5 4. It is yet further contended that the Scheduled Caste Certificate furnished by the petitioner being issued from the Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner as per the judgment in Subhash Chandra Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board 2009 (11) SCALE 278 is not entitled to be considered in the reserved category, inasmuch as the petitioner was required to furnish the Scheduled Caste Certificate issued by the Delhi Government. It is further clarified that though in subsequent order dated 13th November, 2009 in I.A. No.7-12 in Subhash Chandra (supra) it was observed that the judgment in Subhash Chandra was prospective but the said clarification was issued in the context of students who had already applied and had been selected for counselling and cannot be extended to persons such as the petitioner, clarification with respect to whose educational eligibility even has been made only in order in Sohan Ram case. The counsel for the respondent GNCTD further states that since in this case the petitioner was not found eligible, the need for considering whether he fulfilled the other requirements such as belonging to the reserved category or not was not even gone into. 5. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the reason of his having W.P.(C)12637/2009 Page 5 of 5 not furnished the requisite certificate of belonging to the reserved category in which he had applied, was not raised by the respondents. He however admits that he had applied along with the certificate issued by the Government of Rajasthan. 6. Though the counsel for the petitioner has contended that vacancy in pursuance to the advertisement and the examination aforesaid still exists but after four years of the declaration of the result, I have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the counsel for the respondents. 7. The only relief which can thus be granted to the petitioner is to declare that for future vacancies if any, the petitioner shall be considered as having the educational qualification and be entitled to apply in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 02, 2011 bs