Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Niharika Puhan vs Dsssb on 5 August, 2024
1
Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 2517/2022
Order Reserved on : 30.07.2024
Order Pronounced on :05.08.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Niharika Puhan,
D/o Sudhakar Puhan,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o-217/A, IInd Floor,
Masjid Moth, New Delhi-49,
Group 'B',
Sub: Appointment,
Mob. 834045815.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Ritank Kumar for Mr. Raghav Sharma)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB),
through its Secretary,
At: FC-18, Industrial Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92
2. Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi,
Through the Principal Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-54
3. The Director of Education,
Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi,
Through the Principal Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-54
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Tanmay for Mr. Amit Anand and Ms.
Purnima Maheshwari)
2
Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"i) direct the respondents to evaluate the answer sheet of the applicant and consider her for appointment as Physical Education Teacher under the Directorate of Education with all consequential benefits if found suitable, quashing Notice dt.4-6-19 (ANNEXURE A1 supra) to the extent her case has been rejected;
AND/OR ii. pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit & proper."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondents in the year, 2017, the applicant applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher against Post Code 90/17.
2.1. The applicant took the Selection Test on 16.09.2018 against Roll No. 270000057 and she was provided Booklet/OMR answer sheet No.10818312. 2.2. Vide Notice dated 04.06.2019, the applicant Booklet/OMR answer sheet No.10818312 was shown as not checked for wrong shading/darkening of bubbles qua her Roll Number.
2.3. Thereafter, the applicant sought the copy of her OMR sheet through R.T.I application on 08.08.2019. However, 3 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 vide reply dated Nil her request was rejected. Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal and vide reply dated 13.10.2021, she was provided with a photocopy of her OMR sheet. The OMR sheet provided to the applicant shows that the Roll Number mentioned by her in digits is correct. However, the OMR sheet does not make it clear whether the bubbles are wrongly shaded or not.
2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this regard, the applicant visited the office of the respondent No. 1, i.e., DSSSB on many occasions, but to no avail. 2.5. Agitating her grievance, the applicant has preferred this OA seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 to evaluate her answer sheet qua Post-Code 90/17 for appointment to the Post of Physical Education Teacher under the Directorate of Education, Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi and consider her for appointment to the said post if she is found otherwise eligible.
2.6. In the OA, it is the contention of the applicant that the OMR sheet supplied to her is vague and unclear so far as the darkened bubbles are concerned. It is further contended by the applicant that so far as Roll Number in digits is concerned, the same is correctly mentioned in the 4 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 OMR answer sheet and the respondent No.1, i.e., DSSSB could have evaluated her answer sheet.
2.7 Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following judgments:
(i) Judgment dated 07.12.2015 in OA No. 1413/2015 titled Ms. Kritika Raj vs. Staff Selection Commission of this Bench of the Tribunal.
(ii) Judgment dated 19.05.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 4519/2016 titled Staff Selection Commission vs. Kritika Raj of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(iii) Judgment dated 20.01.2017 in SLP (C) No. 25206/2016 titled Staff Selection Commission and Kritika Raj of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(iv) Judgment dated 28.06.2022 in W.P. (S) No. 5502/2018 with W.P. (S) No. 5618/2018 titled Hulash Nayak vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. with Sanjay Kumar vs. The state of Jharkhand of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
2.8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant is identical to Ms. Kritika Raj's case (supra) and the judgment of this Tribunal dated 5 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 07.12.2015 in the case of Ms. Kritika Raj's (supra) has been affirmed up to the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Respondent No. 1 has filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA. A separate counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3.1. Drawing strength from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, Mr. Tanmay, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the applicant has committed the mistake of not bubbling her roll number correctly which resulted in non- evaluation of her OMR sheets.
3.2. Learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 further submitted that vide Notice dated 04.06.2019, it was informed that the respondent could not evaluate OMR answer sheets in respect of 168 candidates (including the applicant) who had appeared in the examination held on 16.09.2018 due to wrong bubbling/darkening of roll number in OMR answer sheet. He stated that clear instructions were given in the Question Booklet as well as on OMR answer sheet with the following specific directions:
"a) The candidate must complete the details of Roll Number, Question Booklet No., etc., on the Answer Sheet and Answer Sheet No. on the space provided above in this Question Booklet, before he/she actually start 6 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 answering the questions, failing which the automated system did not read their roll numbers and Answer Sheet will not be evaluated and he/she will be awarded 'ZERO' mark.
b) A machine will read the coded information in the OMR Answer sheet. In the case the information is incomplete/different from the information given in the application form, the candidature of such candidate will be treated as cancelled.
c) Valuation of Answer Sheet will be done on the computer. Candidate should not make any stray marks on the Answer Sheet, tamper with or mutilate it.
Otherwise it will not be evaluated.
d) The appropriate Circle should be shaded for Roll. No., Question Booklet No. and Preference of Post Codes applied for etc. This should be done carefully because only the shaded circle is scanned."
Learned proxy counsel further stated that in the Notice dated 04.06.2019, it is further mentioned that the respondent has been following the automated system of reading Roll No. etc. on OMR answer sheet through scanner without any manual intervention. Therefore, it is evident that if the roll number is not mentioned correctly in OMR answer sheet by the candidate, the system will not be able to read the correct roll number. Learned proxy counsel further adds that the applicant has very conveniently chosen to ignore the instructions given in the OMR answer sheet wherein the candidate has been clearly instructed to bubble the appropriate circles in the roll number. 3.3. Learned proxy counsel for the respondents further relied upon the judgment dated 01.10.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5375/2012 titled 7 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 Roshan Lal vs. UOI & Anr. and the judgment dated 25.07.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 4807/2022 titled UOI & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh. 3.4. Drawing strength from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, learned counsel, submits that the Directorate of Education is the User Department and the Dossier of the applicant has not yet been received from DSSSB, i.e., the respondent No. 1. She further submits that the role of Directorate of Education starts only after the dossiers are received from the DSSSB.
ANALYSIS:
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that the point of consideration in the present matter is with regard to incorrect bubbling/darkening of the OMR answer sheets, which has become fatal to the case of the applicant and resulted in non-evaluation of her OMR answer sheet and accordingly, rejection of her candidature on this very ground alone.
4.1. It is not disputed that there was an error on the part of the applicant in incorrectly bubbling/darkening the OMR answer sheet. It is also pertinent to note that a Coordinate 8 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ms. Kritika Raj vs. Staff Selection Commission (supra) in para Nos. 21 to 23 had held as under:
"20. From the aforesaid legal back ground, it is clear that applications or candidatures or selections normally shall not be rejected by the authorities, if any minor mistakes made by the youngsters in the competitive examinations, if otherwise establishes the identification of the person concerned, who applied for the post under consideration, in response to the relevant advertisement.
21. In view of the above legal position and in view of the fact that one post of Assistant in CSS was kept unfilled by virtue of the Interim Orders of this Tribunal and the appearance of the applicant before the Central Excise authorities was also made subject to outcome of this OA, and as she has written her name correctly on the relevant paper Module 3, which was also evaluated and awarded marks 86 out of 100, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to allot the post of Assistant in CSS to the applicant.
22. In the circumstances and in view of the above discussion, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to allot the post of Assistant in CSS to the applicant, if she is otherwise eligible, and the consequential orders for her appointment shall be issued, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
4.2. The Judgment dated 07.12.2015 in Ms. Kritika Raj vs. Staff Selection Commission (supra) was challenged by the respondents in Staff Selection Commission vs. Kritika Raj (supra) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition vide its order dated 19.05.2016. 4.3. Thereafter, the respondents challenged the judgment dated 19.05.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Staff Selection Commission vs. Kritika Raj (supra) 9 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Staff Selection Commission and Kritika Raj (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP vide its order dated 20.01.2017.
4.4. Thus, it is evident that the judgment of this Tribunal dated 07.12.2015 in the case of Ms. Kritika Raj's (supra) has been affirmed up to the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4.5. In light of the above and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as also keeping in view the reasons and ratio of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Ms. Kritika Raj (supra), we are of the view that the present OA is bound to succeed.
Conclusion :
5. In view of what has been outlined above, we allow the present OA and direct the respondents to process the OMR answer sheet of the applicant for evaluation. In the event, after evaluation of the OMR sheet of the applicant, if it is found that she is in merit list and otherwise eligible, consequential relief qua issuance of an offer of appointment shall flow to her. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a 10 Item No. 74/C-4 OA 2517/2022 certified copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/