Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rashmi Dagar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 5 August, 2025
1
OA No. 2685/2016
Item No. 41 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 2685/2016
Reserved on : 22.07.2025
Pronounced on : 05.08.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)
1. Rashmi Dagar,
Aged About 25 years,
D/o Sh. Supan Prakash Dagar,
R/o VPO Malik Pur, New Delhi.
2. Deepak Dagar,
Aged About 22 years,
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
R/o Village Samas Pur Khalsa,
P.O Ujwa, New Delhi .....Applicants
(By Advocate : Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj with Mr. M. K.
Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Secretary FC-18, Karkardooma,
Institutional Area, Delhi 110092
3. New Delhi Municipal Council,
Through its Chairman, Palika Kendra,
Parliament Street, New Delhi ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. K. M. Singh, Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee with
Mr. Manish)
2
OA No. 2685/2016
Item No. 41 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) To quash and set aside the notice no. 479 dated 14.06.2016 and direct the respondents to call the applicants for scrutiny of documents and consider their claim for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) with all consequential benefits.
ii) To declare the action of respondents in not informing the applicants about inclusion of their name in the select list and the date fixed for scrutiny of documents and cancelling their candidature for non appearance, as illegal, unjustified and direct the respondents to appoint the applicants to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) with all consequential benefits being the selected candidates.
iii) To allow the OA with cost.
iv) Any other orders may also be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants who aspired to be Primary Teacher applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondents in the year 2014 whereby the candidates were required to 3 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) submit their applications through online mode as also were required to provide their valid and active e-mail IDs for communication. According to the counsel, the applicants followed the guidelines and provided their e-mail IDs to the respondents. Thereafter they participated in the selection process and appeared in the written exam held on 19.10.2014. The result of the said exam was published on 18.08.2015. However, the applicants did not find their names in that result. Thereafter, as per available vacancies various results were declared on 03.02.2016, 02.03.2016 and 05.05.2016. The result declared on 05.05.2016 though included the names of the applicants vide which they were directed for verification of documents on 13.05.2016 however, were not informed either through e-mail or any other mode about their selection (as has been done in the case of one Subhra Nag who was informed through speed post about her appointment). Moreover, the respondents issued another Public Notice dated 23.05.2016 directing the applicants along with other candidates to appear for document verification on 31.05.2016. The applicants missed their date of scrutiny of documents due to non communication either by post or through email and later their candidature was rejected vide 4 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) Notice No. 479 dated 14.06.2016. Aggrieved, the applicants preferred representation dated 27.06.2016 to the respondents followed by reminder also requesting them to consider their candidature as candidates with lower merit than the applicants were appointed, but to no avail. Hence, the applicants filed this OA.
3. The counsel of the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"A. The case of the applicants is a clear example of arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents and the same is proved from the sequence of events taken place after declaration of the final result on 18.08.2015. When against 88 A. vacancies, the respondents declared 118 candidates qualified and called them for verification and the name of applicants was not included in the aforesaid list dated 18.08.2015, the applicants had no occasion to even believe that subsequently their names would also be included in the select list. The name of applicants were included in the select list in view of the changed circumstances, therefore, it was the duty of the respondents to inform the applicants about inclusion of their name in the select list and requirement for appearing on the date fixed for verification of documents as per the terms & conditions of the advertisement and notice dated 18.08.2015. No such information through SMS/ personal mail ID or post was provided to the applicants for inclusion of their name in the select list and appearing for scrutiny of documents.5 OA No. 2685/2016
Item No. 41 (C-4) B. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong and that too in violation of the terms & conditions of advertisement itself. A perusal of advertisement makes it clear that the applicants were directed to provide their e-mail IDs for communication and contacting at different stages of examination process, however the respondents did not provide the information to the applicants on the aforesaid ID about inclusion of their name in the select list and requirement to appear for verification of documents.
C. The respondents had included the name of applicants in the list of qualified candidates for the first time on 05.05.2016 and within 1 month & 9 days, they canceled the candidature of applicants on the ground that the applicants did not appear for verification of documents on 13.05.2016 & 31.05.2016. When the applicants were not informed about inclusion of their name in the select list and appearing for scrutiny of original documents on aforesaid dates, how could they appeared for verification of documents on the said date or any other date. It seems that some concerned officials wanted to favor their own persons, therefore, the process of inclusion of name of applicants in the select list and cancelation of their candidature was completed within less than 40 days. The respondents should have given reasonable time to the applicants, particularly when no direct communication regarding selection and appearing for scrutiny of documents was sent.
D. The respondents have acted in violation of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India as they have sent information about the verification of documents to similarly placed persons who were candidate for appointment to the post of PGT, Post Code 122/12, 155/12, 189/14 & 190/14 etc. by speed post as evident from letter dated 09.06.2016 sent to one of the 6 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) candidate, whereas no such letter by speed post was sent to the applicants. The respondents did not even sent information about scrutiny of documents on mail-ID of applicants provided at the time of submission of application as per advertisement.
E. The respondents have failed to consider that after declaration of final result, the candidates had no reason to again verify about their selection. No reasonable person with common prudence would keep on seeing the site of recruitment agency for such selection process of which final result was declared. Furthermore, all the candidates may not have even facility of seeing the site everyday for want of computer and other required equipments.
F. The applicants who had put their all efforts for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and got selected had no reasons to not accept the appointment to the said post. The inferences drawn by the respondents regarding interest of applicants for appointment has no basis. The applicants, were from rural background and limited means were aspiring for appointment to the said post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and the same is evident from the fact that they put all efforts for their selection to the said post.
G. The applicants right of consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) cannot be curtailed on account of not appearing on a specific date for scrutiny of documents. When the applicants were not informed about the specific dates, they had no reason to appear for scrutiny of documents on the date fixed.
H. The entire action of respondents in canceling the candidature of applicants is violative of terms & conditions as stipulated in the advertisement and principle of natural justice. The 7 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) applicants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before cancelation of their candidature.
I. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 447 that it is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favorable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.
J. The respondents have failed to consider that when as per the provisions made in advertisement and mentioned in public notice in particular notice dated 18.08.2015, the candidates were required to be informed through SMS/e-mail of the candidates as provided in the application form, how could the applicants be treated differently in the matter of providing information regarding their selection and appearing with original documents for scrutiny by the competent authority on 13.05.2016 & 31.05.2016."
4. The counsel of the applicants relied on the following judgments of various courts which are listed below :-
1. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9062/2012 dated 04.09.2012
- Savita Budania vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2. WP(C) No. 3137/2016 dated 04.08.2016 - Ajay Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.
3. OA No. 3992/2017 dated 23.05.2019 - Deepti Singhal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
4. OA No. 876/2019 dated 26.04.2019 - Poonam vs. GNCTD & Ors.8 OA No. 2685/2016
Item No. 41 (C-4)
5. Per contra, the counsel of the respondent no. 3 - NDMC vehemently opposed the above arguments of counsel of the applicants contending that the respondent no. 3 had issued offer of appointment to all those candidates whose names were provided by the respondent no. 2 and the candidates who failed to join their duties in response to the said offer letter were re-issued the offer letter vide final notice dated 19.10.2016. However, they failed for join their duties hence their candidature was rejected and their dossiers were returned to the respondent no. 2. Thus, NDMC cannot be held responsible for their non-joining.
6. Counsel for the respondent no. 2-DSSSB also opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicants mainly on two grounds firstly, the applicants did not respond to the call displayed on website of the Board and hence failed to submit their requisite documents. Secondly, there were 20 candidates above Ms. Rashmi Dagar (Applicant No. 1) and 23 candidates above Mr. Deepak Dagar (Applicant No. 2) who have been rejected for absence. Thus, their candidature was rejected with the approval of the competent authority. Moreover, the selection process has already been over by now.
9OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4)
7. Rebutting the arguments of the counsel of the respondents, the counsel of the applicants in his rejoinder stated that the respondents have instead of admitting their mistake of non-communication about inclusion of their names in the select list have tried to justify their action by stating that the applicants were expected to visit the website frequently for updated information. He highlighted the example of other candidates of different selections where they were duly informed of their appointment through speed post as well as by e-mail and SMS. He pressed hard on the notice dated 18.08.2015 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the applicants / candidates would be informed about the notice through SMS/e-mail provided whereas the applicants were never informed about the same. He further stated that as the final select list of the post in question was already published way back, the applicants had no reason to believe that another list of successful candidates would be issued for scrutiny of documents to fill up the remaining vacancies. Moreover, the applicants were not granted enough time for submitting their documents as has been evident from the fact that within one month and 9 days of issuing notice for verification of documents, the candidature of the applicants was cancelled that too without any information to them. 10 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4)
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Courts and decision of the Coordinate Bench of CAT. We have observed that as per para 7 (f) of the advertisement it is stated that the applicants must ensure that while filling the application forms, they should provide their valid and active E-mail IDs as the DSSSB may use electronic mode of communication while contacting them at different stages of examination process. Unfortunately, both the applicants were not sent the result and instructions to upload their e-dossier neither through post nor through e-mail/whatsapp/SMS. As a result, the applicants were not at fault and blissfully unaware of the result and instructions to upload their dossier during the time window specified by the respondents.
9. We have perused DSSSB's Result Notice (Part-III) :
464 for Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Post code - 150/14) dated 05.05.2016 where the roll nos. of the two applicants :-
19014448 and 19001858 are mentioned and vide the said notice they were directed to appear for verification and submission of documents on 13.05.2016 (Friday) at board premises. At the bottom of this result Notice, we have 11 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) observed that a copy has been marked to System Analyst with a request to upload the result on the official website of the Board. For better understanding the said Result Notice dated 05.05.2016 is reproduced below :- 12 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) 13 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) 14 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) 15 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) We have also perused DSSSB's Public Notice dated 23.05.2016 on the subject - 'Last & Final opportunity for the candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers (Primary), Post Code-150/14. The same has also been reproduced below :- 16 OA No. 2685/2016
Item No. 41 (C-4) 17 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) Here also at the bottom of this Public Notice, a copy has been marked to System Analyst to upload the same on the official website of the Board.
We have also perused DSSSB's Result Notice (Part II) :443 on the same subject (as in Part III quoted above) dated 02.03.2016. Again at the bottom a copy has been marked to System Analyst for uploading the said notice on the official website of the Board.
10. From the above analysis it is clear that the respondents-DSSSB did not abide by the terms and conditions of their own advertisement. They did not inform the applicants about the result and the direction to upload their e- dossier through e-mail/other electronic modes of communication. They did not use WhatsApp/SMS or send the result and directions by post; instead they marked a copy of the result to the System Analyst with request to upload the same on the official website of DSSSB. We are of the considered opinion that it would be expecting too much/asking too much of the candidates who are not even aware of their result to keep checking the website of DSSSB daily/frequently and that too when DSSSB does not have any fixed time table for uploading the result. Accordingly we are 18 OA No. 2685/2016 Item No. 41 (C-4) of the considered opinion that this OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned Rejection Notice No. 479 dated 14.06.20216 is hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently the competent authority among the respondents is directed to call the applicants for document verification/allow the applicants to upload their e- dossiers on the DSSSB's website within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further the respondent nos. 2 and 3 - DSSSB and NDMC respectively or the concerned competent authority are directed to consider appointing the applicants to the post of Primary Teacher (as they are otherwise meritorious) if they are otherwise found fit, within a period of two months from the date they receive the dossiers of the applicants. Needless to mention that the applicants would get all the notional benefits like seniority and fixation of pay and allowances. However, there will be no payment of any arrears of pay based on the principle of 'No work no pay'. There will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/