Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sarla Kumari vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 11 March, 2016
OA 4535/14 1 Sarla Kumari Vs. GNCTD & another
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A.NO.4535 OF 2014
New Delhi, this the 11th day of March, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AND
HON'BLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
..........
Sarla Kumari,
Aged about 34 years,
W/o Sh.Kuldeep Singh,
R/o Flat No.J-31, Type-II (PHP),
Sector 16B, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110078 .... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.S.N.Sharma)
Vs.
1. GNCT of Delhi, through Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, Govt.of NCT of Delhi,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman/Controller/Deputy Controller of Exam.,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi ........ Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.K.M.Singh)
......
ORDER
Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
In response to the Advertisement No.01/13 issued by respondent No.2-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the Page 1 of 7 OA 4535/14 2 Sarla Kumari Vs. GNCTD & another applicant submitted application for selection and recruitment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) Female in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi (vide Post Code 15/13). On 10.9.2013, a notice, along with the lists of eligible, and of ineligible candidates, was uploaded on the website of the respondent-DSSSB, inviting representations from the candidates by 20.9.2013. The name of the applicant having appeared in the aforesaid list of ineligible candidates, she submitted a representation dated 17.9.2013, along with the self-attested copies of certificates in support of her claim to have possessed the qualifications required for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) Female, requesting the respondent-DSSSB to accept her candidature for the post. The respondent-DSSSB, after considering the representations received from various candidates, including the representation of the applicant, published a list of eligible candidates on 26.11.2014, wherein the applicant's name did not find place. The respondent-DSSSB also published a list of candidates whose applications were rejected. As against the name of the applicant, it was mentioned that her application was rejected by the respondent-DSSSB on the ground of her not having the requisite qualifications as on closing date. Hence, the present O.A. was filed by her on 18.12.2014, seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) To quash the rejection letter by which the applicant's name has been rejected.
(b) Direct the respondents to issue the Roll No. to the applicant for the examination to be held on 28.12.2014 for the Post Code 15/2013.
(c ) Pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Page 2 of 7
OA 4535/14 3 Sarla Kumari Vs. GNCTD & another
(d) Allow cost in favour of the applicant."
2. Opposing the O.A., the respondent-DSSSB have filed a counter reply. The respondent-DSSSB have stated, inter alia, that the application of the applicant was rejected as she was found not to have bubbled 'column 13(1) B.A.(Honours) in MIL concerned, (3) Additional Language in B.A., (4) Equivalent oriental degree in MIL concerned, (5) Sahitya Ratna of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, (6) PG qualification in MIL concerned, (7)Degree/Diploma in teaching SAV Certificate' of the OMR application sheet. The representation made by the applicant was considered and rejected by them, since on scrutiny of the applicant's OMR sheet, it was again found that the applicant did not bubble the appropriate column of the OMR sheet. The respondent-DSSSB, therefore, submits that her application was rightly rejected.
3. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 19.12.2014, directed that the applicant might be permitted to appear in the examination which was scheduled on 28.12.2014 provisionally, subject to the outcome of this O.A. 3.1 In their counter reply, the respondent-DSSSB have disclosed that in compliance with the Tribunal's interim order dated 19.12.2014, ibid, they issued provisional admit card to the applicant to appear in the examination scheduled on 28.12.2014.
4. We have perused the records, and have heard Shri S.N.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Shri K.M.Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-DSSSB. Page 3 of 7
OA 4535/14 4 Sarla Kumari Vs. GNCTD & another
5. Shri S.N.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the present O.A. is covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.4445 of 2014 and other connected cases (Neha Nagar, etc. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors, etc.), decided on 18.12.2015, a copy of which was also produced before us.
6. Shri K.M.Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, produced before us a copy of the applicant's OMR sheet, and reiterated the stand taken by the respondent-DSSSB in their counter reply.
7. In Neha Nagar, etc. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors, etc.(supra), the applicants submitted their applications in response to the Advertisement No.01/13, issued by the respondent-DSSSB, which is also the subject-matter of the present O.A. Their applications were rejected by the respondent-DSSSB on the ground of their not having the requisite qualifications as on the closing date. The respondent-DSSSB took the stand that they used the OMR Technology in respect of the applications for the recruitment examination. If the applicants failed to bubble the required slots indicating their essential qualifications and other details, the OMR Technology rejected their applications. The respondent-DSSSB also pleaded before the Tribunal that the verification of the certificates pertaining to the essential qualifications would be done at the time of appointment only, i.e., after the applicants successfully cleared the examination. The coordinate Bench observed that though the applicants Page 4 of 7 OA 4535/14 5 Sarla Kumari Vs. GNCTD & another possessed the essential qualifications as on the closing date for receipt of applications, yet in view of their not bubbling the relevant Columns of the OMR Form, or for misunderstanding the instructions contained in the Advertisement, the respondent-DSSSB rejected their applications. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal also observed as follows:
"11. It is well settled that applications or candidatures or selections normally shall not be rejected by the authorities, basing on the minor mistakes committed by the youngsters in filling up the application forms or in the competitive examinations, if otherwise, they establish their identity and that they are qualified and eligible for consideration of their cases by furnishing the documents in proof of the same....."
In support of its observation, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts of Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, and Rajasthan, and different Benches of the Tribunal, in Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644; Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Another Vs. Neeraj Kumar and Another in W.P. ( C ) No.1004/2012, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.2.2012; Rohit Kumar Vs. Union of India, C.W.P No.13730 of 2012 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 27.7.2012; Anil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.657 of 2012 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on 2.1.2013; Ravindra Mallik Vs. Staff Selection Commission & others, decided by Principal Bench of the Tribunal on 13.2.2013; Arvind Kumar Kajla Vs. UOI & others, OA No.1802 of 2012, decided by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal on 30.10.2013; Subhanta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.Civil Page 5 of 7 OA 4535/14 6 Sarla Kumari Vs. GNCTD & another Writ Petition No.11269 of 2011, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on 13.5.2014; and Ms.Deepika & Another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others, decided by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal on 2.7.2014, 7.1 Accordingly, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal held thus:
"20. In view of the above legal position and in view of the fact that the applicants were already permitted to take the examination provisionally by virtue of the interim orders dated 23.12.2014 and their results are yet to be declared by the respondents, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to declare the results of the applicants and to consider their cases along with others as per his/her merit, after verifying their qualifications or otherwise satisfying themselves with their suitability, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of a copy of this order. The OAs are disposed of, accordingly. No costs."
8. After having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rival contentions of the parties, we have found no reason to take a view different from what has been taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Neha Nagar, etc. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors, etc.(supra). We have also found that the applicant in the present case is similarly placed as the applicants in Neha Nagar, etc. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors,etc. (supra). Accordingly, we direct the respondent-DSSSB to declare the result of the applicant and to consider her case, along with others, as per her merit, after verifying her qualifications, or otherwise satisfying themselves with her suitability, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Page 6 of 7
OA 4535/14 7 Sarla Kumari Vs. GNCTD & another
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SUDHIR KUMAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AN
Page 7 of 7