High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/11487/2015

Neelam Rani v. Deputy Secretary (Cc-1) Confidential Cell Dsssb And ORS

2016-01-08Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur2 pages

$~6 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11487/2015 & CM APPLN.30405/2015 NEELAM RANI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate with petitioner in person versus DEPUTY SECRETARY (CC-1) CONFIDENTIAL CELL DSSSB AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. R.A. Iyer, Advocate for Mr.

Gautam Narayan, ASC, with Mr.

Prashant Raghav, Dy. Secretary, DSSSB for respondent No.1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 08.01.2016 Vide Public Notice of 17th August, 2015 first respondent had given an opportunity to the candidates, who had participated in the common exam pertaining to post code 69/2010 and 2/2013 for inclusion of their names in the other post code. Petitioner claims to have taken the exam under the post code 69/2010 and vide Representation of 21st August, 2015 (Annexure P-10) had sought the inclusion in the mark-list. According to petitioner, there was no response to Representation (Annexure P-10) and first respondent vide Public Notice of 3rd December, 2015 (Annexure P-13) has included the candidates in the list, who were aged more than 30 years, but petitioner has been left out. Petitioner claims that she had W.P.(C) 11487/2015

secured 110 marks in the examination relating to post code 69/2010 whereas as per Public Notice (Annexure P-13), the cut-off marks for the unreserved candidates was of 113.

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that she had sought re-evaluation vide letter of 13th August, 2015 (Annexure P-12) and there was no response to petitioner's letter (Annexure P-12). In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to direct first respondent to treat the amended petition of 23rd December, 2015 as a Representation and to decide it by a speaking order and to specifically consider as to why the age limit was reduced from 32 years to 30 years.

Let this be done within a period of six weeks from today and the fate of the Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to both the sides. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 08, 2016 s W.P.(C) 11487/2015