Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mandeep Singh vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 20 December, 2024
1
Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A No. 2648/2021 With M.A 2515/2022,
M.A No. 3668/2022 and M.A No. 475/2023
Reserved on : 20.11.2024
Pronounced on : 20.12.2024
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Mandeep Singh
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o House No. 372, Kair Post Office,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043
Mob. No. 9310782302, 9891977987
Post: Lower Division Clerk in Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Post Code: 51/13
Group - C ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr.
Nikhil Pawar, Ms. Tanya Rose, Mr. Shakib Malik and Mr.
Pradeep Kumar)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB),
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through the Commissioner,
3rd Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002
3. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through the Commissioner,
2
Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021
3rd Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002
4. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Commissioner, Udyog Bhawan,
Industrial Area, Patparganj,
Delhi - 110093.
5. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, I. P Estate
New Delhi-110002 ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Ms. Anupama Bansal,
Mr. Anoop Chaturvedi, Assistant Project Officer, EDCIL, Mr.
Ashish Yadav, ASO, DSSSB)
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The present OA has been filed by the applicant Mr. Mandeep Singh, under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"8. (i) set aside the impugned Order No. F.55(277)/Exam/DSSSB/2021/10813-20 dated
02.09.2021 (Annexure A-1), passed by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) whereby the applicant was debarred from appearing in all future exams w.e.f 24.10.2019 and also ordered further that the candidature of the applicant will be deemed cancelled if he has appeared in any exam conducted by conducted by DSSSB prior to above date, which would be conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB); 3 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021
(ii) set aside the impugned Order No. F.1(430)/CC- II/DSSSB/2020/3310-3323 dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure A- 2), passed by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) whereby the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled for the post of Lower Division Clerk (Post Code: 51/13).;
(iii) allow the present Original Application with costs in favour of the applicant; and
(iv) issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the favour of the applicant."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the learned counsel of the applicant is that in response to the Notice/advertisement No. 03/2013 issued by the DSSSB for various posts including the post of Lower Division Clerk (Post Code 51/13), the applicant whose date of birth is 28.04.1993 applied for the said post and had appeared in the written exam held on 24.10.2019. Subsequently, while appearing in PET/Skill Test on 05.03.2011, some identification issue was raised by the Invigilator however, on being verified and satisfied on identity of the applicant, he was allowed to appear and complete the said PET/Skill test. Moreover, in addition to his thumb impression being taken on some documents, several photographs and video recording was also done for all the candidates including the applicant. Learned counsel further 4 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021 submits that taking abundant caution the applicant wrote to the DSSSB on 09.03.2021 reiterating his stand that he and none else appeared and completed PET/Skill test on 05.03.2021. He also sent his two photographs, one with mole and another without mole to the authorities and requested them to accept the same to avoid any inconvenience in future. He further stated that ignoring the said letter of the applicant, the respondents have issued impugned order dated 02.09.2021 debarring the applicant from any exam conducted / to be conducted by the DSSSB for lifetime w.e.f 24.10.2019. It was further ordered that his candidature would be deemed cancelled if he appears in any exam conducted by the DSSSB prior to the above date. Later, another impugned order dated 21.10.2021 was issued cancelling the candidature of the applicant. According to the learned counsel both the impugned orders are bad in law as the same have been passed without giving him any opportunity of being heard. The same are hit by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, passed without following the principles of natural justice and suffer from non- application of mind. It is also added that no inquiry was also conducted before passing such orders imposing penalty 5 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021 of lifelong debarment from appearing in the exam is very harsh and the same are disproportionate to gravity of alleged misconduct. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred various representations, the latest one being 03.11.2021 praying the respondents to initiate and complete the investigation at the earliest but all in vain. He also registered his grievance in Public Grievance Monitoring System on 29.10.2021 which is still under process. He also sent a legal notice dated 15.11.2021 via email to the authorities which is still pending consideration. Hence the present OA.
3. The learned counsel of the applicant argued vociferously using the following grounds :-
(i) Without issuing any show cause notice to the applicant, the DSSSB has issued the impugned orders dated 02.09.2021 and 21.10.2021.
(ii) The applicant is 28 years old and is completely unemployed and even on equity the aforesaid impugned orders are illegal as well as unjustified.
(iii) He took shelter of the decision given by this Tribunal in OA No. 3004/2019 dated 30.01.2010 whereby in similar 6 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021 facts and circumstances, an identical issue was decided setting aside the impugned order therein holding that the same was violative of principles of natural justice.
4. We have come across different replies being filed by different respondents. The short reply filed by the respondent no. 3 only stated that as the impugned orders are passed by the DSSSB, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation has no role to play hence they may be discharged. Vide para 3 of the short affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, it has been stated that due to mismatch of the Biometric details and photograph of the applicant during his CBT and Skill Test, on impersonation the applicant was debarred for lifetime and his candidature was also cancelled. For the sake of clarity the said para 3 is quoted below :
"3. That it is hereby submitted that South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 2) had sent the vacancy to DSSSB in 2013 to fill up 345 posts of Lower Division Clerk. The examinations were conducted for the post of LDC by DSSSB. It is submitted that vide No.F.55(277)/EXAM/DSSSB/2021/10813-20 dated 2/9/21, Biometric details & Photograph of candidate taken at online CBT Exam (at Pariksha Online Centre, Plot No. 113A, Shivani Enclave, Kakrola, New Delhi- 110078, Shift 2-24- 10-2019) and at Skill Test (Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, 05-03-2021) are mismatched. Being a case of impersonation, DSSSB had debarred Mr. Mandeep Singh, S/o Sh. Joginder Singh for any examination to be conducted by the DSSSB for lifetime w.e.f 24.10.2019. Further the candidature of Mr. Mandeep 7 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021 Singh will be deemed cancelled if he has appeared in any exam conducted by DSSSB prior to above date. 2."
It is further stated that the role of answering respondent starts only after the dossiers of the successful candidates are received from DSSSB. Hence for the time being they have no role.
5. The reply filed by the answering respondent i.e., no. 1 stoutly opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicant and vehemently pleaded taking preliminary objections using the following grounds :-
"C. The applicant is a candidate who had applied for the post of LDC (post code:51/13) in Vacancy Notice (03/2013). The applicant claims to have appeared in both the written and as well as the skill test, but upon the discrepancies being found in his biometric details and as well as the photograph, an order dated 02-09- 2021, has been passed by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSB) whereby the applicant has been debarred from any examination conducted/to be conducted by the DSSSB for the lifetime, w.e.f. 24.10.2019 and the same has been impugned herein along with another order dated 21-10- 2021, whereby the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled for the post of LDC (Post Code: 51/13).
D. That the terms of appearing in the examinations being conducted by DSSSB are very clear on the aspect of using unfair means/impersonation, etc. which have been mentioned in the vacancy notice itself. Thus, the mismatch in Biometric Details and the Photograph of the applicant are sufficient ground for the answering respondents to pass an order for cancellation of candidature of the applicant, in accordance with the provisions and rules laid by the Government.8 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021
He further stated that DSSSB adheres to zero tolerance policy towards any such misconduct by the candidates which hampers the fair and equal representation in the examination. Further the order of CAT - Principal Bench dated 30.01.2020 passed in OA No. 3004/2019 is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant OA.
6. The learned counsel of the applicant in his rejoinder further argued that there has been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice in his case as no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant and the impugned orders passed by DSSSB were issued in total haste.
He quoted two judgments of CAT to buttress his arguments :-
(i) Judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Dipak Patar Vs. Union of India and Ors. In O.A. No. 040-00220 of 2014, decided on 08.05.2015.
(ii) Judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad bench in Ajay Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors. In O.A. No. 1487 of 2004, decided on 25.11.2011.9 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021
Also the order of DSSSB debarring the applicant for lifetime was bad in law and untenable offending the principle of proportionality.
7. Heard the learned counsel of both the sides ; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments and orders of the Coordinate Benches of CAT. This matter was heard at some length on 09.08.2024 and the following was recorded in the order sheet :-
"The matter was heard at some length.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was an aspirant to the post of LDC and the examination/recruitment process was conducted by the DSSSB, pursuance to the notification dated 12.09.2013, outsourced to one private company by the name of EDCIL. The additional affidavit was filed by the respondents on 04.09.2023 wherein the respondents, i.e., DSSSB had relied upon the report submitted by the EDCIL with respect to the applicant's signature and photograph matching/mismatching. Needless to say, the candidature of the applicant has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that even on receipt of the report from EDCIL, the case of the applicant had been placed before a committee of the DSSSB which included three Deputy Secretaries, who also opined that this is the case of mismatched.
4. We have perused the report of EDCIL. As per this report, there are at least six columns which describe the finger print matching score as well as the image matching score. At one place, the finger print match score is mentioned as 0, whereas another, it has been mentioned that finger print matched perfect 100. The report is not clear.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents is directed to file an additional affidavit explaining the report in detail within three weeks. The learned counsel for the applicant is directed to implead the EDCIL as their report is the basis on which the action has been initiated against the applicant.10 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021
This shall be done within a period of one week's time. Once the amended memo of parties is placed on record, the Registry shall issue notice to the EDCIL to appear in person or through their counsel on the next date of hearing.
6. List the matter as part heard on 14.11.2024"
8. Today, the concerned officers of EDCIL appeared in person and along with the counsel of DSSSB stated that they are ready to examine the genuineness and bona fides of the applicant's finger print and photograph with the help of their technical advisors - Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) after calling the applicant to their office on a mutually convenient date. Further, if both the finger prints and photograph match during this exercise, the charge of impersonation would be dropped and the applicant would be considered suitable for this job. The applicant's counsel also agreed to this proposal. Accordingly, we allow the OA by quashing and setting aside the impugned order No. F.55 (277)/EXAM/DSSSB/2021/10813-20 dated 02.09.2021 and No. F.1 (430)/CC-II/DSSSB/2020/3310- 3323 dated 21.10.2021. The respondents i.e., EDCIL along with DSSSB are directed to call the applicant to EDCIL's office on a convenient date ; carry out the above mentioned exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified 11 Item No. 32 (C-4) OA 2648/2021 copy of this order and if the finger print and photograph matches and if the applicant is otherwise found fit on merit and medical grounds consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerks (Post Code 51/13) with all notional benefits like fixation of pay and allowances and seniority. However, there will be no payment of arrears of pay and allowances on the principle of 'No work no pay'. There will be no order as to costs.
Pending M.A(s) if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/