Delhi High Court - Orders
Neha vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 26 January, 2019
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26th February, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 1358/2019 & CM APPL. 6194/2019
NEHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms.
Seema Dolo, Advs. for CBSE
Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC for
R-2 with Ms. Manisha Saroha,
Adv.
Mr. N. K. Singh, Adv. for
Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC,
GNCTD (Services), for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 26.01.2019
1. 4366 vacancies, for appointment in various posts in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, were notified by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "the DSSSB") vide advertisement dated 26th June, 2018.
2. The petitioner, admittedly, satisfied the qualification prescribed for the post of Primary Teacher which was covered under the said advertisement, as prescribed therein. She, therefore, applied for the said post, but was not selected on the ground that she had failed to qualify the Combined Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET), which is W.P.(C) 1358/2019 Page 1 of 3 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as "the CBSE") and is an essential prerequisite for the said appointment as per Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
3. The petitioner appeared on 9th December, 2018, for the CTET, and, to her discomfiture, while the test booklet given to her was having the Code 'I', the Code recorded on the answer sheet was 'J'. It is stated that, on the petitioner informing the invigilator of this discrepancy, she was advised to fill in the answers in the answer sheet treating it as her answer sheet with Code "I", instead of Code "J". She did so,
4. However, in the final result, which was announced on 4th January, 2019, she was awarded only 36 marks out of 150. It is an admitted position that the petitioner's answer sheet was marked on the premise that she had been issued a 'J' Code question paper.
5. In these circumstances, the CBSE, proactively, had the petitioner's answer sheet re-examined, treating it as an answer sheet for the question paper with Code "I".
6. The grievance in the writ petition, therefore, stands effectively addressed.
7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, owing to the delay that has been occasioned in this process, her client has W.P.(C) 1358/2019 Page 2 of 3 been unable to upload her e-dossiers on the website of the DSSSB, the last date for which was 14th February, 2019.
8. Needless to say, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the CBSE.
9. Mr. N.K.Singh, who appears for the DSSSB, has, very fairly, suggested that, given the peculiar facts of this case, as a one-time relaxation, the petitioner would be permitted to submit her e-dossiers offline during the course of the day.
10. Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, is agreeable to this suggestion.
11. Mr. Singh undertakes to communicate this order to the DSSSB, so that they would accept the petitioner's e-dossiers offline during the course of the day.
12. Needless to say, the petitioner would also be required to complete all other requisite formalities which may be required to be completed in that regard.
13. In view of the above, the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and is, therefore, disposed of as such.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J FEBRUARY 26, 2019/dsn W.P.(C) 1358/2019 Page 3 of 3