Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Supeeta Bai Meena vs Dsssb on 17 March, 2025
1
Item No. 60 (C-4) O.A No. 444/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 444/2022
Reserved on : 25.02.2025
Pronounced on : 17.03.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Supeeta Bai Meena
D/o. Shriphal Meena,
Residing at VPO - Bardala
Tehsil - Nadaoti Karauli, Rajasthan ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Anand Singh and Mr. Abhishek Verma)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
2. The Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Secretary (Education)
Education Department, Old Secretariat,
Education Department, Old Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 054. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Girish C. Jha)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:- 2 OA No. 444/2022
Item 60 (C-4) "8(i) Allow the present Original Application; and
(ii) Pass necessary directions to the respondents whereby allowing the applicant to re-submit her documents on the application portal; and
(iii) Pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that pursuant to the vacancy notice/advertisement No. 03/21 dated 27.05.2021 published by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Primary Teachers, the applicant applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Sanskrit) post code No. 55/21. She participated in the selection process and was declared successful under the ST category with 80.14 marks. The cut off marks were 62.26. Subsequently, on 21.01.2022 she uploaded her e-dossier. However, due to some technical glitch, the e-dossier number could not be generated which was verbally communicated by the applicant to the respondents on various occasions. She preferred written representation also in this regard. Later, a recall notice in respect of some other post code was issued by the respondents for re-uploading the documents and the applicant was quite hopeful that for the post code 55/21 also, recall notice would be issued. However, as nothing cropped up from the respondents, again the applicant represented on 11.02.2022 for re-uploading her e-dossier. Aggrieved by the non-action of the respondents the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of this OA.
3 OA No. 444/2022Item 60 (C-4)
3. Following grounds were raised by the counsel of the applicant to buttress his contentions :-
"A. Only the online test was conducted by the Respondent whereby the Applicant stands duly qualified and awaiting only the document scrutiny process. Therefore, the whole selection process is in early stage and allowing the Applicant to alter invertible mistake, attributable to the Respondent, which happened in her recruitment Application form would not cause any prejudice to any party including the Respondents.
B. The Respondents notified First Recall Notice in r/o TGT Social Science (Male), Post Code 39/21 for re-uploading the documents by those candidates who had previously submitted deficient documents. It is pertinent to highlight that similar notification will be published for TGT Sanskrit (Female) and by allowing the Applicant herein to re-submit her documents on the portal would cause no prejudice to any party including the Respondents.
C. The Respondents have themselves failed to properly intimate and inform the Applicant upon completion and submission of her documents that the same was deficient. An express communication upon successful/unsuccessful application form submission is done across the length and breadth of this Country in multitudinous examination process conducted by various state commission and appropriate authorities. As such, the Respondents failure to appropriately assist and intimate the Applicant regarding the non-generation of the e-dossier no. cannot be made a basis of not allowing her to take part in the document verification process.
D. The error which crept in the Application process in the on-line application form was purely inadvertent and bonafide, as such she cannot be made to suffer due to no fault of her own.
E. The inaction by the Respondents and the cancellation of the candidature of the Applicant suffers from gross indifference and ineptitude resulting into abrogation of the rights of the Applicant guaranteed under Article 14, Article 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The error which crept in on account of the technical snag on the website/application portal cannot be a basis of abrogation of Right to Livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the 4 OA No. 444/2022 Item 60 (C-4) Constitution and as such the Applicant does not deserve to be penalized for no fault of her own.
F. It is pertinent to highlight the fact that there is no scope of manual intervention by any candidate upon submission of their documents on the online portal of DSSSB and as such the error apparent cannot be attributable to the Applicant herein, being made to suffer on account of a technical snag/error on part of the website/portal managed, maintained and supervised under the authority and supervision of the Respondents. H. The respondents have not addressed the grievance of the Applicant despite her representation. The denial on the part of the respondents is causing miscarriage of justice which deserves to be prevented by lawful exercise of jurisdiction by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
I. Because, the error is attributable only to the Respondents on account of a technical snag/error on part of the website/portal managed, maintained and supervised under the authority and supervision of the Respondents, pursuant whereof, the Applicant's constitutional rights cannot be impeded and abrogated in such a manner whereby due to no fault of her own, she would be subjected to loss of livelihood."
4. To strengthen his case, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in State of Rajasthan vs. Datar Singh - 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2303 which observed as under :-
"17. It emerges from the judgment of the learned Single Judge after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in totality observed that aspirants committed errors in mentioning categories, in which, their respective candidature was to be considered and as per the advertisement there was no possibility of correction of error as the application forms were submitted on-line. Therefore, the learned Single Judge reached the conclusion that errors crept in are quite minor but have far reaching effect including non-consideration of the Applicants' candidature 5 OA No. 444/2022 Item 60 (C-4) because as per the advertisement any error in mentioning the information excludes them from consideration against the vacancies relating to their own actual category. However, upon filing representation, the respondents refused to allow corrections, therefore, learned Single Judge while following the adjudication made in the case of Savita Bajaj in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9062/2012, decided on 04.09.2012, issued directions to the respondents to make necessary correction in the application form submitted on- line by the Applicants on or before 30.09.2012.
18. In our considered opinion, while modifying the stay order granted earlier by this Court, it was made clear that interest of justice will be served if the appellants carried out the compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In other words the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the Applicants and like persons pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge but subject to the decision of the appeal and, at the same time, not investing them with any additional right merely for compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge. It is also considered appropriate to observe that if at all while carrying out compliance the appellants or the respondents find any difficulty or the process gives rise to any dispute the same can always be brought before the Court by way of appropriate application for necessary orders."
Catena of other decisions were also cited by the counsel for the applicant which are enlisted below :-
(i) Kavita Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Examination) 2017 SCC Online Raj 3612 ;
(ii) Uphar Saini vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2015 SCC Online Raj 7945 ;
(iii) Ms. Pushpa vs. Government of NCT of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 9112/2008 ;
(iv) Ravinder Kumar vs. Union of India in W.P (C) 5364/2014 ;
(v) Hari Singh vs. Staff Selection Commission & another in W.P (C) 11928/2009 ;
(vi) Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another (2016) 4 SCC 754 and 6 OA No. 444/2022 Item 60 (C-4)
(vii) Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India (MANU/DE/3549/2016), this was later upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had granted relief to the candidate who was at fault on account of having entered wrong date of birth in his application form. The error committed in the aforesaid matter was attributable to the candidate alone, and yet, the relief was granted to him by the Hon'ble High Court by observing as below :-
"...it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in his online and application. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. There could be no intentional misrepresentation as the school certificate was submitted. The penalisation of cancellation of the candidature on the ground of a typographical error is arbitrary, unreasonable harsh and disproportionate to its gravity of the lapse."
5. Rebutting the contention of the counsel for the applicant counter has been filed by the respondents opposing the OA. It is stated that the IT branch of the Board had examined the alleged technical glitch and confirmed that no fault was found in the link during 11.01.2022 to 25.01.2022 provided for submission of e- dossiers with a stipulation that 'if any candidate fails to upload the e- dossier during the said period, his/her candidature would be rejected and no further opportunity for uploading of e-dossier will be given on whatsoever grounds'. Further out of 1400 eligible candidates 1377 had uploaded their e-dossiers successfully and generated the requisite e-dossier number which shows that no technical flaw was present during the aforesaid period of submission of e-dossiers. He added that the applicant failed to press the final submission button 7 OA No. 444/2022 Item 60 (C-4) while submitting her e-dossiers and thus no e-dossier number could be generated in her case. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that if any opportunity of uploading e-dossier is given to one applicant, it would be injustice with several other similarly placed candidates of this Post Code and also with hundreds of candidates of other post codes also whose candidatures had been cancelled for such reason.
6. Reliance was also placed by counsel for the respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 2892/2019 in Pushpender Singh Parnami vs. DSSSB & Anr., dated 25.03.2019 wherein it has been held that 'Having missed the bus, he cannot be permitted to submit his documents/e-dossiers after the cut-off date. If such relaxation were to be granted to one candidate, it would be discriminatory in respect of others, who may have similarly missed the bus and this would render the entire process undertaken by the DSSSB as one ended.' He also relied upon the decision in a similar OA No. 1254/2018 by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Pooja Rai vs. DSSSB & Anr. dated 01.11.2019 which was dismissed.
He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 4085/2019 in Mrs. Jyoti vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi wherein while upholding the order in OA No. 800/2019 dated 8 OA No. 444/2022 Item 60 (C-4) 19.03.2019 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under :-
"The DSSSB had re-fixed their schedule by allowing the candidates to upload their e-dossiers from 04.02.2019 to 13.02.2019 and, therefore, even if it is accepted that the petitioner got notice of the said extension only on 08.02.2019 (for which there is no proof placed on record), she had sufficient time even after 08.02.2019 to upload her e-dossiers. The Tribunal has found and we agree with the said findings, that if the petitioner is permitted to upload her e-dossier after the closing of the scheduled period, the same would amount to discrimination against others, who may have similarly not been able to upload their e-dossiers by the notified date and time i.e. 13.02.2019. Merely because the petitioner claims that she was pregnant or out of town is no ground for extension of time as the selection process which is undertaken on a very large scale, cannot be delayed or withheld on account of the circumstances of a particular candidate."
"The petition is dismissed along with pending application."
7. Heard the learned counsel of both the sides ; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts in the instant OA and observed that DSSSB after declaring the cut off marks had shortlisted 1400 candidates and directed them to upload their e-dossiers during the time window from 11.01.2022 to 25.01.2022. In response to this direction, a total of 1377 candidates uploaded their e-dossiers successfully. The figure of 1377 out of 1400 candidates comes to more than 98%. This over whelming figure shows that there was no hindrance or glitch in the OARS module of DSSSB during the activation period of e-dossier link. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that there was no error on the part of the DSSSB and the mistake, carelessness and 9 OA No. 444/2022 Item 60 (C-4) ineptitude squarely lies at the doorsteps of the applicant. If any further opportunity of uploading the e-dossier is given to the applicant it would tantamount to doing injustice with several other similarly placed candidates of this Post Code and also with numerous candidates of other Post Codes whose candidatures were cancelled for not uploading the e-dossier during the stipulated period. The rulings cited by the respondents, more particularly the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 2892/2019 in Pushpender Singh Parnami vs. DSSSB & Anr., (supra) also clearly has laid the ratio that 'Having missed the bus, she cannot be permitted to submit her documents/e-dossiers after the cut-off date. If such relaxation was to be granted to one candidate, it would be discriminatory in respect of others, who may have similarly missed the bus and this would render the entire process undertaken by the DSSSB as one sided.'
8. In terms of judicial propriety, we thus abide by the aforesaid decision and observe that the balance of convenience in this OA clearly lies with the respondents. The instant OA lacks merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/