Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devender Yadav vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 12 August, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.4572/2014
Order Reserved on: 06.04.2016
Order Pronounced on: 12.08.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
1. Devender Yadav
S/o Shri Ram Phal Yadav, Age-29
Vill-Jhul-Jhulli, Guman Hera,
Delhi-110073.
(Application No. 132674 Post Code 12/13)
2. Rajesh Dabral
S/o Shri Kishori Lal Dabral, Age-26
H.No. 1/A, Street No.4, Road No.5,
Block-Z, Phase 1, Shayam Vihar,
New Delhi-110043.
(Application No. 108563 Post Code 14/13)
3. Neetu,
W/o Sandeep Kumar, Age-27
Poll No.12, Pana Panchhiya,
VPO-Chhawla, New Delhi-73.
(Application No. 109231, TGT Hindi 07/13)
-Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Rajender Yadav)
Versus
1. The Secretary
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
(Near Railway Reservation Centre)
2. The Chief Secretary,
National Capital Territory of Delhi,
New Secretariat, Players Building,
ITO, New Delhi.
3. Principal Secretary (Edn.)
School Branch, Old Secretariat; Delhi-110054.
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Prashant Sivarajan for Shri Ankur
Chhibber)
2
(OA No.4572/2014)
ORDER
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
Miscellaneous Application No.4024/2014 filed by the three applicants praying for being allowed joining together for filing a single O.A. is allowed.
2. The OA was filed on 19.12.2014, along with an application for urgent hearing of the matter, and was listed on 23.12.2014. While issuing notices, one of the Standing Counsels for respondents, who was present in the Court, was directed to accept notice on behalf of the respondents. The Bench had that day further noted that balance of convenience lies in permitting the applicants to provisionally take the examination scheduled to be held on 28.12.2014, which was ordered accordingly, with the further direction that the result may not be declared without leave of this Tribunal. After the counter reply was filed, learned counsels argued the matter in part on 16.03.2016, and the learned counsel for the applicants sought time to file some more supporting judgments for advancement of his arguments. The part- heard matter was finally heard on 06.04.2016, and reserved for orders.
3. The three applicants of this OA had responded to the Advertisement No.01/13 in the month of February 2013 for recruitment for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs, in short), with the last date for submission of applications being 20.03.2013. The applicants claim to have filed their applications, for three different posts & post 3 (OA No.4572/2014) codes, before the cut off date. The Advertisement had indicated that the educational qualification, age, experience etc. shall be determined as on the closing date of submission of applications as mentioned above, and all the three applicants claim to have acquired the requisite qualifications before the closing date, and that information regarding that, along with supporting documents, had been submitted by them to Respondent No.1. However, the respondents did not issue the Admit Cards to the applicants in spite of their request dated 17.09.2013.
4. The applicants are aggrieved that even though they had all requisite qualifications for the posts concerned, and had submitted those details and made their representations along with supporting documents, and had even rectified all deficiencies in their applications through such representations, still the Respondent No.1 had rejected their candidature, without any valid grounds, in spite of their having all the requisite qualifications for the said posts. They have further taken the ground that this Tribunal has already held that the candidature of anyone cannot be rejected only on the basis of minor mistakes in their applications. In the result, the applicants had prayed for the following reliefs:-
"A. Issue an appropriate direction/order to the respondents to start the process of recruitment of the applicants. B. Issue an appropriate direction/order to the respondents to cancel the rejection list of the applicant. C. Issue an appropriate direction/order to Respondents to allow the applicant to sit in the examination, which is scheduled on December 28, 2014 for the post code of 12/13, 14/13, 07/13.
D. Issue an appropriate direction/order to Respondents to treat the application of the applicant a not rejected. 4
(OA No.4572/2014) E. Issue an appropriate direction/order to Respondent No.1 to give the chance to the applicant to rectify his all decencies of the application.
F. Take the strict cognizance of partial, dishonest, discrimination, corrupt practices in appointment of said post. G. Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be kindly be passed favour of the applicant.
H. The Application filed by the Applicant may kindly be allowed with costs."
5. Though multiple and different reliefs had been sought for in the prayer clause, since they are all related to a single source cause of action, the OA cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of plurality of reliefs having been sought for in an OA.
6. The respondents filed their counter reply on 15.01.2016 and submitted that they had invited applications, for the Post Codes 01/13 to 23/13 through their Advertisement No.01/13, to be submitted on Optical Mark Reader (OMR, in short) Sheets, before the closing date of 20.03.2013. It was submitted that OMR technology uses a scanning device that shines a beam of light upon an OMR form which is nothing but a blank form, and a definition of entry zones, and the OMR detects marks made on the form and evaluates them accordingly. It was submitted that the OMR technology, thus, automates the evaluation of the application forms, and ensures quick rejection or acceptance of the application forms as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. This technology eliminates human errors and ensures quick verification of forms. It was submitted that after such verification of the applications received, the list of eligible and ineligible candidates was put on the 5 (OA No.4572/2014) website of Respondent No.1 on 10.09.2013, asking the ineligible candidates to submit their representations, if any, by 20.09.2013. The cases of the three applicants of this OA had been rejected, as they had not bubbled the requisite bubbles as indicated in the reasons column against their names in the following table:-
Sl. Name of OMR Reason for rejection
No. the Application
Candidates Form No.
1. Devender 132674 Candidate had not bubbled
Yadav elective subject as provided in
Column No. 13 under TGT
2. Rajesh 108563 The candidate had not bubbled
Dabral column No.13 (7) Degree/Diploma
in teaching/SAV Certificate.
3. Neetu 109231 The candidate had not bubbled
against additional language as
provided in column No. 13(3)
under TGT (MIL)
7. It was submitted that the representations of the three applicants submitted on 17.09.2013, as mentioned above, had been considered and scrutinized and rejected/regretted, as the applicants had not bubbled the requisite bubbles in the column meant for their respective Post Code(s). It was further submitted that, however, in view of the interim orders of this Tribunal dated 23.12.2014, the applicants had been permitted provisionally to take the examination scheduled on 28.12.2014.
8. The same contentions were repeated in Para-wise reply to the OA, and it was prayed that since there is no merit in the OA, as the applicants had not bubbled the requisite bubbles in the column meant for their respective Post Code(s), the OA may be dismissed, and costs be imposed in favour of the respondents. Along with their counter reply, the 6 (OA No.4572/2014) respondents had also filed photocopies of both sides of the OMR Sheet Applications as submitted by the applicants, at pages 7 to 12 of their counter reply.
9. The applicants filed a rejoinder on 25.02.2016. In this rejoinder, it was denied that Applicant No.1 had not bubbled the elective subject as provided in Column No.13 under TGT, and it was submitted that he had requested for rectification of all the mistakes in his representation, but still the respondents did not consider his candidature in the examination. It was further admitted that the Applicants No. 2 & 3 had inadvertently not filled this column, but they also had through their representations requested for their mistakes being rectified, and had filed the supporting documents with their representations. It was submitted that in fact the Respondents had not properly considered the representations of the applicants, even though they had filed supporting documents along with their representations. It was submitted that the respondents had failed to notice that the applicants possessed all the requisite qualifications much prior to the cut-off date of the Advertisement. It was, therefore, prayed that the rejection of their representations by the respondents was wrong, and OA deserves to be allowed. Along with the rejoinder, the applicants had submitted copies of all the relevant marks sheets etc.
10. Heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the applicants had supplied all the requisite information to the Respondent No.1 within the time period 7 (OA No.4572/2014) prescribed for filing objections to the list of ineligible candidates, the respondents ought not to have rejected their candidature.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out to Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the relevant Advertisement No. 01/13, and in particular Para-8 (vi) and Para-9 (c & d), and the Note below Para-9, which state as follows:-
"8. HOW TO APPLY
(i)to (v) xxxxxxxx (Not reproduced here).
vi) All columns must be filled. No column should be left blank, instead it should be marked "NA" wherever not applicable. Incomplete or illegible or incorrectly filled or unsigned application form will be summarily rejected.
Candidate must sign in the running script, not in block letters in the same language.
vii) xxxxxxxxx (Not reproduced here).
9. INVALID APPLICATIONS The application form with any of the following deficiencies or irregularities will be treated as invalid and summarily rejected:
a & b. xxxxxx (Not reproduced here).
c. OMR application form not filled up or not filled up as per direction given in the Notice.
d. Incomplete or illegible or incorrectly filled up applications.
e to p. xxxxxxxxxx (Not reproduced here).
NOTE: No claim for re-consideration of the rejected cases on the grounds specified above will be entertained. Original documents/certificates are to be produced along with self attested copies at the time of verification of documents only."8
(OA No.4572/2014)
12. He emphasized that in the Note below Para-9, it was clearly mentioned that no claim for re-consideration of the rejected cases on any of the grounds (a to p) specified above will be entertained, and that the applications of the three applicants had been rightly rejected on the basis of grounds 9 (c) & 9 (d), as they were careless in not noticing the instructions at Para-8 (vi) and Para 9, and not following them scrupulously.
13. In support of the grounds of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the cases decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.(s) 1430/2007 dated 17.03.2011 Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar in which it was held that young people often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned, and, therefore, he had prayed for the indiscretions of the three applicants to be condoned. Learned counsel for the applicants had also relied upon the judgment dated 24.02.2016 in Civil Appeal No.1691/2016 with Civil Appeal No. 1692/2016 with Civil Appeal No.1693/2016 and Civil Appeal No.1694/2016- Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., which mainly related to the OBC reservation category of the applicants of those Civil Appeals concerned, and does not appear to be directly applicable to the facts of the instant case.
14. Learned counsel for the applicants had further relied upon the judgment in the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. vs. Neeraj Kumar and Anr. in W.P. (C) No.1004/2012 dated 24.02.2012 delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which related to 9 (OA No.4572/2014) the invalidity of an application when the applicant's signature was in block capital letters in English, which method of signing was disallowed by the respondents, but it had been allowed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the peculiar circumstances of that particular case. Learned counsel for the applicants had also relied upon the Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench judgment in CWP No.13730/2012 dated 27.07.2012 Rohit Kumar vs. Union of India and Another in which the applicant had failed to mark/darken the circle in the OMR Sheet to indicate his gender, and the Hon'ble High Court had then directed that such types of very minor and obvious omissions should not come in the way of evaluation of the OMR Sheet of that particular candidate.
Learned counsel for the applicants had also relied upon the order dated 02.01.2013 in Anil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in Single Bench judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.657/2012 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in which, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, when the category for which the petitioner had applied had been correctly indicated, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court had held that the minor error committed by him while filing the OMR sheet deserves condonation, and his answer-sheet deserves to be evaluated on merits, because of which the Writ Petition had been allowed.
15. The learned counsel for the applicants had also relied upon the orders of Coordinate Benches of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.4555/2014 dated 18.12.2015 in Tamanna Tayal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, and in OA No. 4445/2014 with related cases 10 (OA No.4572/2014) Neha Nagar vs. DSSSB & Ors. pronounced on the same date on 18.12.2015, and the order in OA No. 4582/2014 Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs. DSSSB & Anr. also pronounced on 18.12.2015, which have also been perused by us. The leading order among these cases was in OA No. 4445/2014 with related cases, Neha Nagar vs. DSSSB & Ors (supra), in which, after considering a catena of cases where the Courts had held that the indiscretions committed by the youngsters while filling the OMR Sheets etc. could be condoned, it was held that their candidatures should be considered on merits along with others, which ratio was followed in the other two cases of Tamanna Tayal (supra) and Mukesh Kumar Sharma (supra).
16. Along with his reply arguments, on the first date of hearing of the case on 16.03.2016, the learned counsel for the respondents filed a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2813/2013 Manoj Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 64 decided on 18.01.2016, in which the Hon'ble High Court had in Paragraphs 2,4, 5 & 6 held as follows:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in words, the petitioner furnished complete details about roll number and date of birth but the requisite entires, as envisaged in the application form as per advertisement could not be filled up inadvertently, therefore, for such a minor error, his application form ought not to have been rejected.
3. xxx xxx (not reproduced here)
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, in my considered opinion, the error, which was crept in 3 in the application form, may be bona fide but this sort of omission, on the part of the petitioner, was contrary to the instructions and as such I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned 11 (OA No.4572/2014) action of the respondents in rejecting the application form of the petitioner.
5. An incumbent, who was an aspirant for appointment to the post of constable, was required to be vigilant while filling up his application form. It was expected of him to have read the requisite instructions and if he has failed to do so, on sympathetic consideration, no indulgence can be granted to him by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Resultantly, I am unable to find any merit in this writ petition and same is, accordingly, dismissed summarily."
(Emphasis supplied).
17. On the date on 06.04.2016, when the case was finally heard and reserved for orders, the learned counsel for respondents also filed a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 07.01.2013 in W.P. (C) No. 4724/2012 Aruna Meena vs. Union of India and Anr. In that case, the applicant had left the experience Column as blank, and since while filling up the OMR Sheet applications, the petitioner had admitted not having the requisite experience, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the UPSC was fully justified in treating the petitioner as an ineligible candidate. The claim of the petitioner that she had later visited the office of UPSC, and under cover of a letter dated 08.11.2011, she had submitted the requisite experience certificate, was not accepted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as it was held that it is settled law that beyond the cut off date prescribed in an Advertisement, by which all the necessary documents and information had to be made available, the date being sacrosanct, if by the cut off date the relevant documents were not supplied, the candidate concerned was not to be treated as eligible. 12
(OA No.4572/2014)
18. In the instant case, it is seen (from the photocopies of the OMR Sheet applications filed by the applicants, as furnished by the respondents along with their counter reply) that in Column-13, many entries had been left blank. While in respect of his Bachelor's Degree Applicant No.1 was required to mark both the Elective Subjects, and the Main Subject, while he had marked his Main Subjects Political Science and Geography, he had failed to mark any Elective Subjects. Similarly, Applicant No.2 had also failed to fill up any of the bubbles in the first two Blocks of Column-13 regarding his Bachelor's Degree, Degree/Diploma in Training Education, or SAV Certificates CTET qualified or Elective Subjects, but he had marked only the TGT (MIL) Column, claiming to possess equivalent to Oriental Degree in MIL concerned, or Degree/ Diploma in teaching SAV Certificate CTET qualified. In the case of Applicant No.3, she had neither marked regarding her possessing Bachelor's Degree, nor Degree/Diploma or Elective Subjects, but had marked MA (Honours) in MIL concerned as Elective Subjects, and Degree Diploma in teaching SAV Certificate CTET qualified in the last Column for TGT (MIL).
19. We have gone through the orders dated 18.12.2015 of the Coordinate Bench in the leading case in OA No. 4445/2014 with related cases Neha Nagar vs. DSSSB & Ors (supra), in which the Coordinate Bench has passed the order after discussing a number of cases. Under the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases, normally we are bound by the orders of Coordinate Benches, if the facts 13 (OA No.4572/2014) are on all fours with each other. However, it is seen that the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., (supra), would not be applicable to the applicants in the instant case. The facts of this case are also not similar to the case in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. vs. Neeraj Kumar and Anr. (supra).
20. We, therefore, have to consider the applicability of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Rohit Kumar vs. Union of India and Another (supra) read with the Rajasthan High Court judgment in Manoj Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), read with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in Aruna Meena vs. Union of India and Anr. (supra). It is seen that the Coordinate Bench had, on 18.12.2015, while in OA No. 4445/2014 with related cases Neha Nagar vs. DSSSB & Ors. (supra) had noticed many judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, but not the judgment dated 07.01.2013 in the case of Aruna Meena vs. Union of India and Anr. (supra), in which, in Paragraphs 10 to 17, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held as follows:-
"10. The petitioner has left the same blank.
11. Now this cannot be a mistake.
12. It is apparent that while filling up the application form the petitioner admitted not having any experience. This is the reason why she left Colum No. 10(B) of the Part-I of the application form blank as also Column No.8 of Part-II of the application form.
13. It is apparent that while filling the application form the petitioner admitted not having the requisite experience and thus UPSC was fully justified in treating the petitioner as an ineligible candidate.14
(OA No.4572/2014)
14. Now the petitioner claims that one fine day she had gone to the office of UPSC and under cover of a letter dated November 8, 2011 had submitted the requisite experience certificate on which she now wants to rely. The petitioner cannot do so for the reason that this was beyond the last cut off date which was September 16, 2010. Secondly, the record of UPSC would evidence, as per additional affidavit filed by UPSC, that such document was never filed and is not available in the record.
15. In any case, the later aspect of the controversy which is based on fact, need not bother us inasmuch as it is settled law that beyond the cut off date prescribed in an advertisement, by which necessary documents and information have to be made available; the date being sacrosanct, if by the cut off date relevant documents are not supplied the candidate concerned not to be treated as eligible.
16. This is the view taken by the Tribunal. We agree.
17. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs."
(Emphasis supplied).
21. The Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) has, of course, come subsequently to the order dated 18.12.2015 pronounced by the Coordinate Bench in Neha Nagar vs. DSSSB & Ors (supra), and other two cases in the case of Tamanna Tayal (supra) and Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs. DSSSB & Anr. (supra). In spite of the categorical findings recorded by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aruna Meena vs. Union of India and Anr. (supra), even that case had not been pointed out before, and noticed by the Coordinate Bench, while delivering its judgment on 18.12.2015 in Neha Nagar vs. DSSSB & Ors (supra).
22. We are in respectful agreement with the Division Bench judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aruna Meena vs. Union of India and Anr. (supra), and we are bound by it, as well as the Single Bench 15 (OA No.4572/2014) judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Manoj Kumar (supra), and are, therefore, as a result, unable to follow the Coordinate Bench judgment in Neha Nagar vs. DSSSB & Ors (supra) and other related cases. The applicants ought to have been vigilant while filling up their application forms, and when they had failed to do so, no indulgence can be granted to them on any sympathetic considerations. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute & Anr., (1991) 3 SCC 87:
JT 1991 (2) SC 343, held that mere humanitarian grounds cannot form the basis for granting reliefs against the settled propositions of law, or contrary to law, and when an instruction or yardstick prescribed in the concerned advertisement has been applied uniformly in the case of all other candidates, the three applicants before us cannot claim to be provided with a more favourable consideration than others have been provided by the respondents.
23. Therefore, the OA is rejected, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.