LILESH KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS vs SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL AND ANR
$~76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 18.10.2023
+ W.P.(C) 13740/2023 & CM. APPL. 54284-85/2023
LILESH KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS. ….. Petitioner
Versus
SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Garg, Ms. Tripti Gola, Ms. Lhingdeihat Chongloi and Mr. Arvind Sardana, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Farman Ali Magrey, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI with Usha Jamnal and Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners seek quashing of the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners, who had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Driver) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).
2. Respondents had issued an advertisement dated 29.08.2020 advertising vacancies in 16 categories of Constables in the SSB. The concerned category with which the petitioners are concerned is the category of Constable (Driver) for male only.
3. The advertisement stipulates that candidates must fulfil all the eligibility conditions for the applied post and should be in possession of all certificates as on the last date of the application i.e. 30 days from the date of publication of the advertisement in the Employment News. It is an admitted position that the last date for making an application was 27.09.2020 and all the petitioners submitted their applications prior to the said date.
4. The eligibility conditions for the post of Constable (Driver) were two-fold; (i) matriculation or equivalent from a recognized Board (ii) must possess a valid heavy vehicle Driving License.
5. In terms of the eligibility conditions read with the stipulated date of application, it was mandatory that all candidates who apply for the said post must inter alia possess a valid heavy vehicle Driving License as on the closing date of the receipt of the application i.e. 27.09.2020.
6. Candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they failed to produce a valid heavy vehicle Driving License which was possessed by them prior to the closing date i.e. 27.09.2020.
7. The petition gives the various dates on which the Driving License was issued to each of the petitioner. We notice that the Driving License was obtained by petitioner No.2 on 30.09.2020 and others had obtained it after October, 2020 and as late as on 04.04.2020. For the sake of completion, the table given by the petitioners in their petition is extracted hereinbelow:-
S. No.
Name
Roll No.
Date of filing the application
License Applied on
Learners Driving License
Permanent Driving License
1
Lilesh Kumar Tiwari
1070207842
25.09.2020
—
—
12.10.2020 to
11.10.2025
2
Pushkar Mal Phamra
1070610656
09.09.2020
—
—
30.09.2020 to
29.09.2025
3
Rinku Baghel
1070805478
12.09.2020
14.09.2020
—
11.11.2020 to
10.11.2025
4
Ashok Kumar Verma
1070505658
04.09.2020
—
04.11.2019
to
03.05.2020
19.11.2020 to
18.11.2025
5
Sandeep Solanki
1070801368
—
—
—
24.11.2020 to 23.11.2025
6
Rakesh Kumar Rathor
1070514156
02.09.2020
—
18/08/2020
to
17/02/2021
24.11.2020 to
23.11.2025
7
Buddhi Prakash Swami
1070613976
23.09.2020
—
—
25.11.2020 to
24.11.2025
8
Sandeep Kumar
1070614668
21.09.2020
23.092020
10.10.2019
to
09.04.2020
18.12.2020 to
17.12.2025
9
Himanshu Sharma
1070801053
—
—
—
29.12.2020 to
28.12.2025
10
Sumit Chaudhary
1070800933
—
04.01.2021
—
09.01.2021 to
08.01.2026
11
Deepak Kalawat
1070508014
—
—
—
14.03.2021 to
13.03.2026
12
Sanjay Kumar Jatav
1070601491
29.08.2020
—
30.09.2020
to
29.03.2021
18.03.2021 to
17.03.2026
13
Niranjan Singh
1070604553
10.09.2020
10.08.2021
—
14.10.2021 to
13.10.2026
14
Bheem Singh Jatav
1070514587
27.09.2020
—
—
16.12.2021 to
15.12.2026
15
Ravinder Singh Rathor
1070613798
14.09.2020
—
—
04.04.2022 to
03.04.2027
8. Clearly from the own showing of the petitioners, none of the petitioners possessed a valid heavy vehicle Driving License as on the last date of making the application i.e. 27.09.2020.
9. Since the advertisement mandated that as on the closing date of application, candidate must possess a valid heavy vehicle Driving License, the application of the petitioners who obtained a License after the closing date has rightly been rejected by the respondents on the ground that they did not satisfy the eligibility condition as on the crucial date.
10. We find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that on account of COVID, extension should have been granted to the petitioners to enable them to apply for a License. The eligibility condition was very categorical and required holding of a valid heavy vehicle Driving License as on the last date of submitting an application. Petitioners never approached any court of law impugning the eligibility condition. Further, there may be several other individuals who noticing the eligibility condition failed to apply. Since the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Department are sacrosanct, this Court would not interfere with the eligibility condition, particularly, after a candidate has already participated in the selection process and has been rejected on the ground that he does not satisfy the requisite eligibility condition.
11. In view of the above, we find that no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that they did not satisfy the mandatory eligibility condition as required by the subject advertisement.
12. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition. Petition is consequently dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MANOJ JAIN, J
OCTOBER 18, 2023/NA
W.P.(C) 13740/2023 Page 3 of 3