The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the recruitment process for the post of Librarian at Lady Irwin Senior Secondary School, ruling that participation in an interview pursuant to an administrative recommendation does not cure statutory ineligibility regarding age. The Court further held that experience weightage under the Directorate of Education (DoE) marking scheme cannot be claimed for part-time, consolidated-pay engagements that do not meet specific verification requirements.
Justice Sanjeev Narula presided over the case filed by Sunita Rani, a candidate who sought the setting aside of the selection of Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner contended that her long service as a part-time Librarian was arbitrarily denied experience weightage and challenged the appointment of a Person with Disability (PwD) candidate against a vacancy advertised as “UR” (Unreserved).
Background of the Case
The Petitioner, Sunita Rani, was engaged by the Respondent school as a temporary part-time Librarian in April 2006 on a consolidated remuneration. On May 31, 2018, the school issued an advertisement for various posts, including one vacancy for “Librarian: 01 (UR)”. The advertisement noted that age and qualifications would be as per recruitment rules for Delhi Government aided schools and that four Group ‘B’ posts were identified for persons with disabilities.
The Petitioner applied for the post but was initially informed that her past experience would not be counted. Following a recommendation from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, she was called for an interview. The final selection list placed the Petitioner at Serial No. 15 with 47 marks, noting her as “overage,” while Respondent No. 5, a candidate with hearing impairment, was selected with 54.2 marks.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner, represented by Ms. Aditi Gupta (DHCLSC), argued that the selection process was vitiated by the arbitrary denial of weightage for her 12 years of service. She relied on the DoE order dated February 26, 2014, which provides one mark for each year of experience up to a maximum of 10 marks. Furthermore, she contended that the post was advertised as “UR” and could not be converted into a disability-reserved seat after the process began.
The Respondents argued that the Petitioner was ineligible at the threshold due to being overage. The recruitment rules prescribed an upper age limit of 30 years (relaxable to 35 for Scheduled Castes), which the Petitioner, born in 1980, had exceeded by the date of the advertisement. Regarding experience marks, the Respondents submitted that the DoE scheme expressly excludes ad-hoc or contract teachers and requires experience certificates to specify the pay scale, which the Petitioner, being on consolidated pay, could not provide.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On Age Eligibility: The Court found that the Petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years on the date of the advertisement. Justice Narula observed that the Petitioner’s participation in the interview, prompted by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, did not waive the statutory requirement.
“Once ineligibility is established on the face of the selection record, the court cannot compel the employer to treat the candidate as eligible… Participation permitted as an administrative response to a recommendation cannot operate as a waiver of recruitment rules,” the Court stated.
On Experience Weightage: The Bench upheld the Respondents’ application of the DoE marking scheme dated February 26, 2014. The Court noted that the scheme stipulates that “no advantage of experience would be given to adhoc/contract teacher” and requires certification of the post held and scale of pay.
“Judicial review does not allow the court to rewrite the scheme by treating part-time consolidated engagements as equivalent to regular service in a pay scale, while simultaneously ignoring the scheme’s own certification framework,” Justice Narula remarked.
On PwD Reservation: Addressing the challenge to the selection of a PwD candidate against a “UR” post, the Court explained the nature of horizontal reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court noted that the advertisement explicitly stated that four Group ‘B’ posts were identified for persons with disabilities.
“In that framework, the description ‘UR’ in a vacancy table refers to the vertical category, whereas a notation such as ‘UR(PH)’ signifies the application of horizontal reservation within the unreserved stream,” the judgment read.
No Prejudice Demonstrated: The Court further conducted a hypothetical calculation, noting that even if the Petitioner were awarded the maximum 10 marks for experience, her total score would be 57.0. This would still place her below the top candidates who secured 59.7 and 57.6 marks.
“Writ relief is not granted to correct an abstract irregularity when the Petitioner cannot establish that the relief would legitimately culminate in her appointment,” the Court held.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner was age-ineligible and that no grounds were made out to interfere with the appointment of Respondent No. 5, who has been in service since July 2019.
The Court concluded: “The claim to experience weightage does not translate into an enforceable right within the marking scheme’s own conditions and verification requirements.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sunita Rani v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 223/2019
- Coram: Justice Sanjeev Narula
- Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Aditi Gupta (DHCLSC)
- Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat (GNCTD), Mr. Anuj Aggarwal (R-5)
