Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sheetal vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 19 May, 2023
1 OA No.2747/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.2747/2017
MA No.1265/2021
Order reserved on: 19.04.2023
Order pronounced on: 19.05.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Ms. Sheetal (Age about 24 years)
D/o Sh.Om Prakash
R/o H.No.23, Pole No.1,
Near Girls Primary School,
Village + Post Office: Bakkarwala,
New Delhi-41.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. A.K.Bhakt)
Versus
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & others
Through
1. The Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
2. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
3. Dy. Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
2 OA No.2747/2017
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) The grievance of the applicant is that despite having been successful in the selection process and having been offered appointment, her candidature was cancelled vide impugned order dated 27.06.2017 without assigning any reason. Aggrieved, he has filed the instant Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):
"(I) To direct the respondents to produce the entire relevant records pertaining to this matter for proper adjudication.
(II) To quash and set aside the Impugned Order/Corrigendum No.,F.73/Rectt./I.Cell/DSSSB/2017-
18/Pt.File/151 and direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the applicant for the post of Supervisor Grade-II Post code 212/14.
(III) To direct the respondents to consider joining of the applicant since the date joining of immediate junior of the applicant and release full back wages and all the consequential benefits i.e. seniority etc. (IV) To award exemplary cost on the respondent for causing undue harassment.
(V) To pass any other order or orders which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Brief facts, necessary for the adjudication of the present controversy put forth by learned counsel for the applicant are as follows:
2.1 Vide vacancy notice advertisement no.02/14 dated 12.12.2017 the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) invited online applications for different 3 OA No.2747/2017 posts in various departments of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
2.2 The applicant being eligible submitted her application through online mode for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (code 212/14 reserved for female candidates) under Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Her candidature was accepted by the respondents.
2.3 She appeared in the examination and qualified the same. Thereafter, result of applicant was intimated to her that she has been shortlisted for the post code 212/2014 and was accordingly directed to upload her e-Dossier. 2.4 She uploaded her e-Dossier for verification of her documents through online mode on 12.05.2017 but due to some technical error in the server of DSSSB the documents could not be uploaded. However, the applicant again tried to upload her e-Dossier but could not upload the same despite repeated efforts.
2.5 Thereafter the applicant approached the respondents and requested them to accept the documents for verification physically but she was suggested to submit the same through speed post, praying for permission to submit her documents manually. She submitted the same on 15.05.2017 and 16.05.2017 through speed post. 4 OA No.2747/2017 2.6 In the meanwhile, the respondents have issued Result Notice No.149 dated 06.06.2017 where the name of applicant appeared at serial no.4 in the merit list prepared by the respondents under SC category.
2.7 Simultaneously, the respondents have also issued Rejection Notice no.150 dated 06.06.2017 wherein the candidature of applicant was not rejected. Being shortlisted for appointment, the applicant was waiting for offer of appointment but to her utter surprise the respondents in between have issued the Impugned Order dated 27.06.2017 through online mode and deleted the name of applicant which was available at serial no.4 under SC category in the Result Notice dated 06.06.2017, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, and without affording any opportunity to her. The said action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
2.8 The applicant has also filed written submission where she has submitted that during the pendency of the OA, the respondents issued General Notice dated 13.11.2017, giving opportunity to the candidates to submit e-Dossier within 10 days. The applicant again tried to upload her e-Dossier on 22.11.2017, 23.11.2017 and 24.11.2017 but unfortunately could not upload the 5 OA No.2747/2017 same due to non-support of website of DSSSB and the following information was received on website of DSSSB "Last date has been over for Uploading eDossier." 2.9 In support of the claim of the applicant, Shri A.K. Bhakt, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Manisha v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors., OA No.4042/2017 decided on 29.10.2018 wherein this Tribunal has allowed a similar claim of the applicant therein by directing the DSSSB to accept the documents of the applicant in hardcopy, verify them and if it finds that the applicant is eligible in terms of her merit position as well as on the basis of her documents, then recommend her claim for appropriate appointment to the user Department, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The learned counsel would urge that the case of the instant applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal.
The learned counsel, therefore, prays that the OA may be allowed in terms of the decision of this Tribunal in Manisha (supra).
3. On the other hand, the respondents no.1 to 3 have filed their reply, thereby opposing the claim of the applicant. It has been submitted that the Board advertised vacancies for the post of Supervisor, Gr.II 6 OA No.2747/2017 (Female) in Department of Women & Child Development vide advertisement No.2/14 and tier one examination was conducted on 05.03.2017. Thereafter a general notice was published on the website of the Board informing them that marks list has been uploaded on the website and the shortlisted candidates were asked to download the check- list and the Annexure „A‟ and „B‟ and duly filled up e- dossier be uploaded from 27.04.2017 to 12.05.2017. The short-listed candidates were also invariably sent SMS through their registered mobile number. However, the applicant failed to upload the e-dossier during the above- mentioned period. While preparing the result, the name of the applicant has been inadvertently mentioned in the list of provisionally nominated candidates in the result notice uploaded on 06.06.2017. Later on, the mistake was rectified vide notice dated 27.06.2017 rejecting her candidature for failing to upload the e-dossier. 3.1 Therefore, the applicant has not been able to make out a case in her favour based on the averments made in the OA and the documents enclosed thereto, the respondents humbly pray that this Tribunal may be graciously pleased to dismiss the OA.
3.2 Respondent no.1 has also filed written synopsis, wherein it has been submitted that the applicant filled the 7 OA No.2747/2017 application form in online mode and she was aware of the instructions and details etc. as stated therein. As per the Board policy it was incumbent upon her to check the website of the Board (DSSSB). She was aware that result would be declared on the website of DSSSB and nowhere in the advertisement, it has been stated that the respondents would inform the candidates through SMS/E- mail. The applicant failed to apply at the first instance when the candidates were shortlisted on the basis of their marks. SMS and E-mail (bulk) was sent via OARS portal, as per IT Branch, DSSSB. The printout of OARS would reflect that the candidates who were shortlisted were informed to upload e-Dossier as per schedule. The public notice was not challenged and the applicant has admitted that she was not able to upload for some reason. The present OA has been filed on 12.08.2017 or thereafter, i.e., only after rejection notice dated 27.06.2017 was declared by DSSSB. The same is unfair to those candidates who were vigilant.
3.3 Further, the Public Notice was not challenged and the applicant at page 27 of the paperbook admits that she was not able to upload the documents for some reason. The present OA was filed on 12.08.2017 or thereafter only after Rejection notice dated 27.06.2017 was declared by 8 OA No.2747/2017 DSSSB. The same is unfair to those candidates who were vigilant.
3.4 It has been further submitted that in OA No.3202/2017 titled Rimpy Vs. GNCTD decided on 28.10.2022 wherein the applicant in para 3 took similar plea that she was not aware that she was supposed to check the website of DSSSB on a regular basis and in para 5 further took the plea that DSSSB provided opportunity to some of the candidates to upload their documents again or rectify the defects in the documents already submitted. The Tribunal in para 8 held "No doubt, the applicant secured high marks and was meritorious as far as selection is concerned, she cannot absolve herself of the lapse in not adhering to this essential requirement, which was brought to notice by way of a public notice. This was an essential requirement to be met by all, and the applicant cannot be allowed a special dispensation. The applicant may have been innocent, in not learning about the result or its hosting on its website, however, there were several others, who responded after the declaration of the result and uploaded their e-dossiers."
3.5 In Para 9 the Tribunal further held that "Moreover, we have seen that the vacancy Notice/advertisement may not have mentioned this requirement specifically but it does 9 OA No.2747/2017 mention that only online applications will be accepted. Since the entire process was online, we cannot infer anything other than the fact that if applications were to be invited online, the result and subsequent verification would also have been done online. It was the applicant's duty to keep a close watch on her own interest."
3.6 The respondents have further relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vishal Singh Tanwar Vs. GNCTD, OA No.220/2020 decided on 05.10.2020 wherein the plea of the applicant in para 2 was that he was not informed by DSSSB about uploading of e-dossier through SMS/email due to which he missed the opportunity to upload the e-dossier. The Tribunal in para 8 held as under:
"The contention of the applicant that he should have been informed separately through SMS/email about uploading of e-dossier in OARS link is not correct as the respondents have contended that DSSSB website is the main source of information for which clear direction have also been indicated even in the admit card also".
3.7 Further reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon‟ble the High Court of Delhi in the case of Pushpendra Singh Parnami Vs. DSSSB, WP (C) No.2892/2019 decided on 25.03.2019 wherein it was held as under:
"The petitioner while applying for the post of PGT (History) was well aware that the result of the written examination would be uploaded by the DSSSB on its website and it was for the petitioner to track the same and to respond in terms of the advertisement issued by the respondent. 10 OA No.2747/2017 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 open ended."
3.8 Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajeev vs. DSSSB, WP (C) No.4721 /2022 decided on 23.03.2022, wherein in para 8.2 it was held as under:
"The reason why we say so is that, on 18.01.2022. DSSSB, even according to Mr Aggarwal, has published a list of candidates who are provisionally nominated, albeit as per merit, for the subject post. Therefore, as against the advertised vacancies i.e., which are thirteen [13] in number, the DSSSB has taken out a public notice which sets out the details of those who are in the main list as well as those who are in the waiting panel list."
It was further held in Para 9:
"Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, if we were to entertain the petitioner's writ petition, at this juncture, it will not only be unfair to those who have already been shortlisted, even though provisionally, but to all those who may possibly have secured marks higher than the petitioner in his category i.e.. the OBC category".
3.9 Respondents have further relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble the High Court of Delhi in the case of Rohit Kumar Vs. UOI, WP (C) No. 15051/2021 decided on 26.04.2022, wherein in Para 13 it was held that "Judicial review is concerned with legality rather than merit of the case. The courts cannot substitute its own view in exercise of power of judicial review".
11 OA No.2747/20173.10 In Para 14 the Hon‟ble High Court has held that "The recruitment refers to the process of finding possible suitable candidates for a job or function to be undertaken by the recruiters and advertising is common part of the recruiting process. It is for the employer to prescribe modalities of selection process, eligibility criteria and conditions for potential candidates."
3.11 Further, in Para 15 it was held that "there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules" and in Para 17 it was observed that the advertisement does not prescribe any relaxation from prescribed conditions. These conditions were equally applicable to all potential candidates without any discrimination and favouritism. The petitioner did not challenge original advertisement and also participated in the selection process and any deviation would result in gross injustice to other candidates.
4. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant is slightly different from the judgments cited by the respondents in the present case. In those cases the candidates have not been selected finally whereas the applicant herein has 12 OA No.2747/2017 been finally selected on the basis of her documents submitted through speed post. It is further submitted that during the pendency of this OA the respondents issued general notice dated 13.11.2017, giving further opportunity to the candidates to submit e-dossier within 10 days. The applicant tried to upload e-dossier on 22.11.2017, 23.11.2017 and 24.11.2017 but her e-dossier was not successfully up-loaded due to non-support of website of DSSSB. He has further relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA No.4042/2017 dated 29.10.2018 and OA No.974/2019 dated 27.03.2019 passed by this Tribunal. In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the OA may be allowed.
5. Heard Mr. A.K.Bhakt, learned counsel for applicant and Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondents and perused the pleadings on record and written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Analysis:
6.1 We have gone through the result notice No.149 dated 06.06.2017, which reads as under:-13 OA No.2747/2017
"SUPERVISOR GRADE-II (FEMALE) POST CODE-212/14 IN DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT On the basis of written examination held on 05/03/2017 and having been found provisionally eligible as per documents submitted in support of educational qualification, age etc. in accordance with advertisement no.02/2014 and RRs for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female) (Post Code-212/14) in Department of Women & Child Development as under:-
xxx xxx xxx
SC CATEGORY:-
S.No. Roll No. S. No. Roll No.
1 12202980 12 12202682
2 12200296 14 12207445
3 12201034 15 12209654
4 12200181 16 12205681
xxx xxx xxx Xxx
While every care has been taken in preparing the result, the DSSSB reserves the rights to rectify errors and omissions, if any.
This issues with the prior approval of the Competent Authority, DSSSB.
sd/-
Dy. Secretary, DSSSB No. F.73/Rectt./Sup.Gr.II(F)/I.Cell/DSSSB/2017-18/136 Dated: 06/06/2017"
6.2 We have also examined the corrigendum dated 27.06.2017, which is reproduced as under:-
"CORRIGENDUM In partial modification to Result Notice No.149, Roll No.12200181 at S.No.4 under SC category of the said Result Notice stands deleted.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
sd/-
Dy. Secretary, DSSSB No. F.73/Rectt./I.Cell/DSSSB/2017-18/Pt. File/151 Dated: 27/06/2017"14 OA No.2747/2017
6.3 We find that the Corrigendum dated 27.06.2017 is non-speaking and non-reasoned one. There is no explanation coming forth about rescinding the result of the applicant dated 06.06.2017. In affidavit 10.04.2018 what has been averred is that the shortlisted candidates were also invariably sent SMS through registered mobile phone. However, the applicant failed to upload the e- dossier during the above-mentioned period. While preparing the result, the name of the applicant has been inadvertently mentioned in the list of provisionally nominated candidate in the result notice uploaded on 06.06.2017, rejecting her candidature in not uploading the e-dossier timely.
6.4 Furthermore, vide Notice dated 13.11.2017, it was recorded as under:-
"No. F.73/Rectt./Int.Cell/DSSSB/2017-18/ NOTICE Recalling of dossier for deficient documents/ clarification Kind Attention:- Candidates for the post of Supervisor, Gr.II (Female) Post Code- 212/14 Some of the shortlisted candidates for the post of Supervisor Gr.II(Female), Post Code-212/14 have not uploaded all the required documents/clarification in the e- dossier. The candidature of these candidates have been kept pending for want of requisite documents/clarification. 15 OA No.2747/2017
The dossiers of these candidates have, therefore, been recalled for uploading the deficient documents within a period of ten days. Therefore, such candidates are advised to check the e-dossier module for the deficient document and upload the same w.e.f. 14/11/2017 to 24/11/2017, failing which their candidature will be rejected and as further opportunity will be given on whatsoever ground.
sd/-
Dy. Secretary, DSSSB No. F.73/Rectt./Int.Cell/DSSSB/2017-18/Pt. File/151 Dated:13/11/2017"
6.5 An additional affidavit was also filed by respondent no.2 wherein it is stated that 2nd and final opportunity is given to only those candidates to upload the documents who uploaded wrong or deficient documents or Board requires specific clarification in respect of any document. There is no explanation coming forth for applying different yardstick, without any basis, in terms of what has been stated in additional affidavit. There is nothing on record to show as to why the Result Notice No.149 dated 06.06.2017 was recalled without affording an opportunity to the applicant herein. We notice that vide record of proceedings dated 18.08.2017 this Tribunal as an ad interim measure directed the respondents to keep one post of Supervisor Grade-II vacant in the SC category till the next date of hearing. This interim order has been continued from time to time.
16 OA No.2747/20176.6 In the present case, the applicant is not seeking any relaxation to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement.
6.7 In given facts of the case, we are persuaded to apply decision rendered in case of Manisha (supra) wherein it was observed as under:-
"4. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice for this small mistake, the applicant should not be made to lose her substantive right of getting employment after she has cleared the written examination.
5. In the conspectus, we direct the DSSSB to accept the documents of the applicant in hardcopy, verify them and if it finds that the applicant is eligible in terms of her merit position as well as on the basis of her documents, then recommend her claim for appropriate appointment to the user Department. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7. Conclusion:
7.1 In view of the foregoing discussion, following the decision of this Tribunal in Manisha (supra), we allow the OA and quash and set aside the impugned Corrigendum dated 27.06.2017. The respondent - DSSSB are directed to accept the documents of the applicant in the form of hard copy, verify them and if it is found that she is eligible in terms of her merit position as well as on the basis of her documents, then recommend her claim for appropriate appointment to the User Department. This exercise shall 17 OA No.2747/2017 be completed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. OA is allowed in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
7.2 Interim order as granted on 18.08.2017 is made absolute.
7.3 All pending MAs are disposed of.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) „SD‟