Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiArun Kumar vs Dsssb on 14 October, 20221\nItem No. 7\n                                             OA No. 2968/2022\n\n\n\n             Central Administrative Tribunal\n               Principal Bench: New Delhi\n                   O.A. No.2968/2022\n\n             This the 14thday of October, 2022\n\n           Hon'bleMr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)\n         Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)\n\n  Arun Kumar (Aged about 32 years),\n  Group 'B'\n  S/o Sh. Suresh,\n  R/o H.No.96, Saini Colony,\n  Auchandi Village, Delhi-110039.\n                                            ...Applicant\n\n(By Advocate : Ms. Manju Sharma )\n\n                          Versus\n\n  1. Through the Chairman\n     Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board\n     FC-18, Institutional Area,\n     Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.\n\n  2. Through Directorate\n     The Directorate of Training and\n     Technical Education, GNCTD\n     Muni Maya Ram Marg,\n     Pitam Pura, Delhi-110088.\n\n  3. Through The Principal Secretary,\n     GNCTD\n     I.P. Estate, Delhi Secretariat,\n     New Delhi-01.\n\n                                         ...Respondents\n\n(By Advocate : Shri Amit Anand)\n                                   2\nItem No. 7\n                                                     OA No. 2968/2022\n\n\n\n\n                     ORDER (ORAL)Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) :-The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated\n\n22.09.2022,        vide   which       his   representation    with\n\nrespect to appointment pursuant to selection to the\n\npost of Instructor Drawing has been rejected.                    By\n\nvirtue of the present OA, he seeks the following\n\nrelief(s) :-"(a) Quash and set aside the\n               impugned order dated 22.9.2022\n               passed by the respondents (Annexure\n               A-1).(b) Direct the respondents to give offer\n               of appointment to the humbleapplicant as he is placed at SI. No. 1of the wait list panel as there are 04\n               posts vacant in OBC category.(c) To grant any other further relief as\n               deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble\n               Tribunal     in    the    facts     and\n               circumstances of the case alongwith\n               the cost and expenses of the present\n               litigation."2.      Issue notice. Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel,\n\nwho appears for the respondents on advance service,\n\naccepts notice.3Item No. 7OA No. 2968/20223.      Brief facts of the case are that in response to a\n\nvacancy notice No.01/14, the applicant applied for the\n\npost of Instructor Drawing under the OBC category.\n\nThe number of posts advertised against the said\n\ncategory were 8. The applicant secured 82.25 marks\n\nand his name was placed in the waiting list. However,\n\nhe was denied appointment and this denial was\n\nchallenged by him by approaching this Tribunal in OA\n\nNo.2338/2022. While deciding the OA on 29.08.2022,\n\nthe Tribunal had given a direction to the respondents\n\nto    consider    the   pending     representation       of   the\n\napplicant with respect to his claim for appointment to\n\nthe aforementioned post by way of passing a reasoned\n\nand speaking order.           It is the order passed in\n\ncompliance       of   these   directions   which    is    under\n\nchallenge in the present OA.4.      Learned counsel for the applicant argues that\n\nthe applicant has received information in response to\n\nhis specific query under theRight to Information Act(RTI) that 4 posts under the OBC category of\n\nInstructor Drawing are still lying vacant.          Since the\n\napplicant's name is at Sl. No.1 in the waiting panel, he4Item No. 7OA No. 2968/2022should be appointed against one of the vacancies.\n\nHowever, the learned counsel for the respondents\n\ncontests this claim and draws attention to the specific\n\nfacts narrated in the impugned order.5.      We have gone through the impugned order dated\n\n22.09.2022.      The facts contained therein are not\n\ndisputed.    The said order clearly mentions that the\n\nmarks obtained by the last selected candidate in the\n\nOBC category are 82.75, whereas the applicant had\n\nsecured only 82.25 marks.      The said order further\n\ngoes on to state that all the 8 vacancies which were\n\nadvertised under the OBC category have been filled up\n\npursuant to the selection process and it categorically\n\nmentions that no vacancies remained unfilled under\n\nthe said category.    In our view, if at later stage, a\n\nsituation emerged that some vacancies have arisen,\n\nthat cannot be held as a ground to consider the\n\ncandidature of the applicant as it would amount to\n\nthe entire selection being unending and open-ended.\n\nMoreover, the impugned order also categorically\n\nmentions that the waiting panel has also since\n\nexpired.5Item No. 7OA No. 2968/20226.      We are of the considered view that since the\n\napplicant has secured lesser marks than the marks\n\nsecured by the last selected candidate and it is\n\nnobody's case that anyone who has secured lesser\n\nmarks than the applicant is given appointment, there\n\nis no cause for the applicant to claim appointment\n\nagainst the said post. Accordingly, in our opinion, no\n\nuseful purpose would be served by keeping the\n\npresent OA pending.7.      In view of the facts as narrated above, the OA is\n\ndismissed, at the admission stage itself.There shall be no order as to costs.(Tarun Shridhar)                (R. N. Singh)\n          Member (A)                     Member (J)\n\n/rk/