SYNOPSIS
1. That the present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated _____________ passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred as 'Hon'ble Tribunal') in OA No. ___ of 20__ vide which the Hon'ble Tribunal has disposed of the OA on the basis of an interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court on ____ in Writ Petition (C) No. ___ of ___ titled _____ & Ors _____ & Ors.
2. That in the said Petition it was wrongly mentioned that Mr. ______________, one of the Batch mates of the Petitioner, has done ___ course. In fact he has done _______ Course (the same course done by the Petitioner) from _____ and his candidature for the post of Primary teacher in MCD was rejected with a remark 'overage' without giving age relaxation as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court in Sachin Gupta and Ors Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Writ Petition.
3. That the Hon'ble Tribunal while disposing of the OA failed to consider the fact that the above said Writ Petition was filed by concealing the fact that disputes regarding educational qualification was already settled by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated __________________ in. The copy of the said order was in the file of the Hon'ble Tribunal, but without considering it and on the basis of wrong statement given by the respondents that Mr. ____________ had done ____ course, the Hon'ble tribunal disposed of the Original Application filed by the Petitioner.
4. The Hon'ble Tribunal also failed the appreciate that Writ Petition No. ________ of 20___ is barred by Res Judicata as all the disputes regarding educational qualification i.e. ETE, Diploma in Education and equivalent courses had been settled by this Hon'ble Court in ______ (supra) which was attained finality after the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Review Petition filed by Mr. _____.
5. Brief facts about the case are that pursuant to the Advertisement No. ______________ of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the petitioner had applied for the post of Primary Teacher in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) (Post Code ____) under OBC Category and appeared for Written Examination held on _____________. She had secured _____ marks but her candidature was not considered for the said Post and her name was displayed in the rejection list published on ________ with a remark of "overage".
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
18.03.__ Maximum age limit for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher ___ were __ years for male and __ Years for Female.
08.05.___ Respondent No. 1 issued a notification and amended Recruitment rules for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in NCT of Delhi and MCD and prescribed the maximum age limit as 27 years for male as well as females.
07.11.20__ Respondent No. 2 issued advertisement No. _____ for the post Teacher (primary) in MCD under the Post Code ____. The Petitioners applied.
20.07.20__ The Ld Tribunal directed the Respondent to herein finalise the amendments in the RRs by applying classification of the post of enhancement of the age.
02.02.20__ The Petitioner appeared in the examination.
08.07.__ Result of the said written Test was published and the Petitioner had secured __ marks (Cut off __).