Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Anjana D/O Mr. Suraj Bhan Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 September, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2108/2013 Wednesday, this the 17th day of September, 2014 Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) Ms. Anjana d/o Mr. Suraj Bhan Singh r/o H.No.129, Block-D, Madhu Vihar Uttam Nagar, Near Dwarka, Sec-3 New Delhi-51 .. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Through its Chairman Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18 Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi-92 3. The Secretary (Education) Directorate of Education GNCT of Delhi Old Secretariat, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Ritika Chawla) O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued Advertisement No.02/2012 inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) under Post Code No.101/12. The last date for submission of application form was 15.6.2012. The applicant applied for the post in question within the prescribed time limit. When her name was not included in the list of eligible candidates, she filed the present Original Application praying therein:
(a) quash and set aside the decision (Annexure A/1) of the DSSSB holding the applicant as not qualified for the post mentioned above and thus canceling her candidature for the said post and
(b) direct the respondents to further consider the candidature of the applicant for the said post and in the event of her selection, she be issued appointment as per her merit obtained in the selection process, with all consequential benefits.
(c) award costs of the proceedings and
(d) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. In the Original Application, the stand taken by the applicant is that the respondents removed her name from the list of eligible candidates without assigning any reason and giving her any opportunity to put forth her stand against cause of rejection of the candidature. However, in the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that in column no.11 (a) of the application form the applicant had not written essential educational / professional qualification [Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET)]. For easy reference, paragraph 1 of the reply is extracted hereinbelow:-
1. That the contents of para 1 of the O.A. to the extent of matter of record is admitted and anything contrary thereto is wrong and denied. It is specifically submitted the applicant does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as one of the essential qualification as per the Recruitment Rules for the said Post code being that the candidate must have qualified CTET conducted by C.B.S.E. whereas, the applicant does not have fulfill the said criteria as she has not qualified CTET conducted by the CBSE as the same has not been specified in column no 11 (a) of the Application form. A true copy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant had qualified the CTET before 15.6.2012, i.e., the last date of submission of application form. He also made a reference to the copy of the CTET certificate placed on record at page 33 of the paper book.
4. We heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. As can be seen from the application form, copy of which has been placed on record by the respondents as enclosure to their reply, in column 11 thereof the candidates were required to give details of their educational / professional qualifications and not of an open eligibility test. The CTET is not preceded by any organized educational / academic or professional course but is open eligibility test held by the CBSE, thus mere non-disclosure of the CTET certificate in column no.11 could be no ground for cancellation of the candidature of the applicant. It is seen from the certificate placed on record that the applicant had qualified CTET much before the last date of submission of application form for the post in question. In the circumstances, we find no justification for cancellation of her candidature.
6. In view of the aforementioned, the Original Application is disposed of with direction to the respondents to examine whether on the basis of CTET-I passed by her the applicant acquire eligibility for the post in question and if she is considered eligible process her candidature in accordance with the prescribed procedure. No costs.
( V.N. Gaur ) ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) 17th September 2014 /sunil/