Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hari Ram vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 25 May, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2815/2015
MA-4310/2015
Reserved on : 16.05.2016.
Pronounced on : 25.05.2016.
Hon'ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
Sh. Hari Ram @ Hari Ram Verma, 30 years
S/o Sh. Banwari lal Balai,
Ward No. 23,
V&PO-Udaipurwati,
District-Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan-333307. .... Applicant
(through Sh. Avadh Kaushik, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Through its Chairman,
F.C.-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110 092. ..... Respondent
(through Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate)
ORDER
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant responded to advertisements issued by the respondents inviting applications for the post of Librarian for two different years requiring the same qualification. The Post Codes given were 69/10 and 02/13. The applications for the Post Code-69/10 were filled manually whereas the applications for the Post Code-02/13 were filled on OMR sheets. The grievance of the applicant is that although his candidature for the Post Code-69/10 was 2 OA-2815/2015, MA-4310/2015 accepted by the respondents, for Post Code-02/13 he was declared ineligible for not possessing the required educational qualifications. For Post Code-69/10, the applicant secured 113.25 marks as per the result declared on 17.07.2015 but failed to get selected. For Post Code-02/13, his name did not figure in the list. The applicant approached the respondents on 23.07.2015 and again on 24.07.2015 requesting them to reconsider his name for Post Code-02/13. However, the respondents did not heed to his request. Hence, he has filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order and directions thereby directing the respondent to declare the applicant as eligible' and 'qualified' for the post of Librarian against Post Code 02/13 and declare his marks accordingly.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order thereby quashing and setting aside the respondent's decision/notice with rejection list dated 0.09.2013 (ANNEXURE-A-4) whereby applicant's candidature for the Post Code 02/13 was rejected on the ground of 'not having requisite qualifications'.
(iii) Any other relief, order or directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal considers just and fit may also be passed in the interest of justice."
2. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the candidature of the applicant was rejected as he failed to display his educational qualifications in the OMR sheet filled by him. This is because he did not bubble the column of essential qualification for the post of Librarian. Hence, in absence of information regarding his qualification, his candidature was rejected.
3. We have heard both sides and have perused the material placed on record. We have also seen the OMR sheet of the applicant, which he had filled at the time of applying for the Post Code-02/13. This is available at pages-84-85 of the paper-book. It is obvious from column-12 of this application that the applicant has made a mistake inasmuch as he has bubbled only the 3rd circle in column-12 (b) instead of all three.
3 OA-2815/2015, MA-4310/2015 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant, however, argued that this Tribunal in a catena of judgments has held that candidature of the youngsters should not be rejected on the basis of minor mistakes committed by them in filling the application forms. In this regard, he placed reliance on a judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-1966/2013 (Ms. Deepika Vs. GNCTD & Ors.) and other connected matters. In the aforesaid judgment candidates who had committed minor mistakes in bubbling the OMR sheets with respect to their educational qualifications, were granted relief and the respondents were directed to process their candidature ignoring such minor mistakes. 3.2 The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 64 in which the petition filed by one such petitioner was rejected on the ground that an aspirant for appointment to a post must be vigilant while filling up his application form and that it was expected of him to have read the requisite instructions.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan relied upon by the respondents is of a Single Bench whereas Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has ruled differently in the above mentioned O.A. We also find that another Bench of this Tribunal in which one of us (Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)) was a Member has allowed OA-4362/2014 (Ms. Deepika Bhagat Vs. GNCTD & Ors.) on 28.01.2016 in similar circumstances. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:-
"11. It is well settled that applications or candidatures or selections normally shall not be rejected by the authorities, basing on the minor mistakes committed by the youngsters in filing up the application forms or in the examinations, if otherwise, they establish their identity and that they are qualified and eligible for consideration of their cases by furnishing the documents in proof of the same.
4 OA-2815/2015, MA-4310/2015
12. This Tribunal disposed of a batch of OAs bearing OA No.4445/2014 (Neha Nagar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Others), decided on 18.12.2015 and OA No.4583/2014 (Santosh v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr.), decided on 30.10.2015 (pertaining to same notification), after considering a catena of cases whereunder the Courts held that the indiscretions committed by the youngsters while filling the OMR Sheets, etc. shall be condoned and that their candidatures should be considered on merits along with others. Since the present OA is also identical, we are disposing of this OA on the same lines.
13. In view of the above legal position and in view of the fact that the applicant was already permitted to take the examination provisionally by virtue of the interim orders dated 22.12.2014 and her results are yet to be declared by the respondents, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the O.A.No.4582/2014 5 respondents are directed to declare the results of the applicant and to consider her case along with others as per her merit, after verifying her qualifications or otherwise satisfying themselves with her suitability, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA is disposed of, accordingly. No costs."
5. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to allow this O.A. as well. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 10.09.2013 qua the applicant by which his candidature was rejected for not possessing the required educational qualification as per OMR sheet filled by him. We direct the respondents to process further the candidature of the applicant. This shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Shekhar Agarwal) Member (J) Member (A) /Vinita/