Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rinki vs Dsssb on 6 May, 2026
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2612/2025
No.
This the 06tht day of May, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg,
Garg Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati,
Khati Member (A)
RINKI, D/o: MR. SATYA PRAKASH PRAJAPATI,
R/o: 478, WEST PARMANAND COLONY, DELHI- DELHI
110009
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Firdouse Qutb Wani, Mr. Md. Zaryab J Rizvi,
Mr. Afzal, Mr. Dilshad Ahmad)
Ahmad
Versus
1. THE SECRETARY, DELHI SUBORDINATE
SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB), AT:
FC-18,
18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI - 110092 EMAIL:
[email protected].
2. THE CHAIRMAN, DELHI SUBORDINATE
SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB), AT:
FC-18,
18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI - 110092 EMAIL:
[email protected].
3. THE CONTROLLER EXAMINATION, DELHI
SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
(DSSSB), AT: FC-18, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI - 110092 EMAIL: coe-
[email protected].
...Respondents.
.Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav, Dr. Monika Bhargava)
Bhargava
Page 1 of 14
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Garg Member (J):--
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
reliefs "a.
a. Direct the Respondents to carry out necessary corrections in the Applicant's application form for the post of PGT (Political Science), so as to accurately reflect her disability status as "blind," thereby enabling her to claim the benefits of reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;
b. Direct the Respondents to permit the Applicant to avail the assistance of a scribe for the PGT (Political Science) examination scheduled to be held on 15th July 2025, in accordance with the binding directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC and the judgment dated 03.02.2025;
c. Direct the Respondents to consider the Applicant's candidatur candidature for the said post under the 1% reservation quota for persons with visual disabilities, as mandated under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016, and as upheld in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors.;
d. Direct the Respondents to condone the the clerical and inadvertent error in the Applicant's application form, which occurred solely due to her dependency on a third party for digital access, and to treat her application as valid under the PwD category;
e.. Pending final adjudication of the present present Original Application, pass an interim order directing the Respondents to provisionally allow the Applicant to appear for the PGT (Political Science) examination on 15th July 2025 with the assistance of a scribe and under the PwD reserved category;
f. Passs such other and further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
justice.
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits tthat the applicant is an aspirant for the post of PGT (Political Science) pursuant to Advertisement No. 07/2023 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board on 22.12.2023. It is Page 2 of 14 SURAJ BISHT Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025 submitted that the applicant belongs to the PwBD category and is suffering ffering from 100% blindness. Learned counsel submits that while filling the online application form, the applicant had sou sought assistance from a cyber cafe for submission of the application.
However, due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed whi while le filling the online form, the disability category could not be correctly reflected in the application form. It is further submitted that the applicant remained unaware of the said error until issuance of the e-admit admit card, wherein she discovered that she had been treated as a candidate under the Unreserved (UR) category and no facility of scribe had been granted to her for the examination scheduled on 15.07.2025. Immediately thereafter, the applicant submitted representations to the respondents through e-mail e ail as well as by hand requesting that she be treated as a PwBD candidate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and be permitted to avail the facility of a scribe. However, according to the applicant, the respondents failed to take any action action on the said representations and orally informed her that no correction could be permitted. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original Application. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is otherwise fully eligible to be considered under the PwBD category and is presently serving as a Page 3 of 14 SURAJ BISHT Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025 TGT (Social Science) in the same department. It is also submitted that this Tribunal, vide interim order dated 14.07.2025, directed respo respondent ndent nos. 2 and 3, namely the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Board,, to provisionally permit the applicant to appear in the examination with the assistance of a scribe.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the judgment rend rendered ered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 9230/2022 dated 03.06.2022 titled Ms. Charu Kain vs. High Court of Delhi Delhi,, wherein it was observed as under:
"10. The petitioner claims that the admit cards were issued on 20.04.2022 and at that stage, she realised her mistake in applying under the General Category. She did not take any immediate steps to correct the said error as according to her, the time was too short. She appeared for the preliminary examination and filed the present petition only aafter discovering that she would make the cut off, if she was considered as a Reserved Category candidate. Although it is stated in the petition that there was some glitch in filling the application, it is clear from the petition that there was no such glitch.
glitch. The error committed is entirely on account of the petitioner incorrectly filling her details. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had appeared in Delhi Judicial Service Examination on three prior occasions (examinations held in the year 2017, 201818 and 2019) as a reserved category candidate. She had also cleared the preliminary examination held in the year 2018 as a reserved category candidate. Thus, she was aware of the procedure.
*****************
15. This Court concurs with the aforesaid view. Clearly, a person committing a bona fide mistake, which does not cause prejudice to any person, should be given an opportunity to rectify the same.
16. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner's mistake is a bona fide one; she derived no benefit from submitting an incorrect application disclosing her category as the general category. She had further compounded the mistake by not seeking immediate rectification as soon as she became aware of the same.
Page 4 of 14
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
17. Notwithstanding the same, this Court Court finds that there is no prejudice caused to any person and the matter regarding the examination has not proceeded to a stage, which renders it inapposite to correct this mistake.
18. Mr Narayan is right in his contention that two candidates, who are now placed laced at Rank nos. 80 and 81, who would otherwise not have cleared the preliminary examination, cannot be prejudiced.
19. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition. The petitioner shall during the course of the da day, submit an undertaking to the respondent requesting the respondent to permit her to rectify the application to disclose her category as an SC category instead of General category and to treat her candidature accordingly. The respondent shall on receipt ofof the said application process the same and issue admit cards to the petitioner along with other candidates. It is clarified that the respondent shall also issue admit cards to candidates currently listed at Rank nos. 80 and 81, who would after inclusion oof the petitioner, would be ranked at Rank nos. 81 and 82.
20. Before concluding, we must appreciate that the stand of the respondent has not been adversarial but accommodative.
21. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 11807/2024 dated 20.09.2024 titled Mr. Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India and Ors., Ors. wherein ein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"37.
37. As noted earlier, in the present case, there is no question of disruption of the admission process or operational issues, particularly regarding admission to the State quota of 85% seats. Even otherwise, several al decisions of the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court permit the correction of bona fide and unintentional errors in the NEET online application forms. In this regard, reference could be made to the following decisions:-
(a) Vishnu Bargavi S. vs. The Director, NEET Exam.
(b) Union of India and Ors. vs. Pradeep Tomar.
(c) Gavini Akhila (Minor) vs. Central Board of Secondary Education.Page 5 of 14
SURAJ BISHT Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
(d) M. S. Aparna vs. Secretary to the Government of India and Another.
(e) P. Swetha vs.. Central Board of Secondary Education.
(f) K. M. Subhiksha vs. The Director, National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Unit and ors.
(g) Dr Lakshmi P. Gowda vs. Nation National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences and anr.
(h) Minor S. Kirthikaa vs. The The Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
(i) B. Darshini vs. The Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
(j) Suvethan D vs. Union of India and ors.
38. Apart from the above decisions, reference must be made to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs the State of Bihar and Others explaining the approach to be adopted in such matters.
39. This was a case where the Petitioner, an Applicant to the post of Police Constable, applied for selection under the reserved category. Although the Applicant, based on his marks and caste certificate, might have secured the employment, he was declared as failed only on the ground that in his application form uploaded online, his date of birth was shown as 8 December 1997, and in the school mark sheet his date of birth was reflected as 18 December 1997.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has graphically explained how the Applicant, who lives in a remote village, visited a Cybercafe in a nearby town and filled out the online online form with the assistance of the person running the Cybercafe. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained how the discrepancy in the birth date was an inadvertent error by which the Applicant derived no advantage. Even if either of the dates were considered, thee Applicant was eligible. The error had no bearing on the selection, and the Applicant himself, being oblivious of the error, produced the educational certificates which reflected his correct date of birth.
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information. The Court referred to its decision in Divya vs Union of India and the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs Union of India and held that the exception for trivial errors or omissions is because the law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognised in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex.
Page 6 of 14
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also noted that the Applicant had participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application was trivial and did not play any part in the selection process. Therefore, the State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the cybercafe got the better of the Applicant. He omitted to notice the error and even failed to avail himself of the corrective mechanism offered. The Court held that in the instant case, it could not turn Nelson's eye to the ground realities that existed.
43. The Court also referred to its order in Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.,, in which it was observed that though technology is a great enabler, there is, at the same time, a digital divide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a trivial error appears to be a genuine and bona fide mistake, it would be unjust to penalise the Applicant for the same. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief to the Applicant in a moulded ded form by observing that justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.
*********
47. In Jeeja Ghosh and another vs Union of India and others others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rights that are guaranteed to differently-abled abled persons areare founded on the sound principle of human dignity, which is the core value of human rights and is treated as a significant facet of right to life and liberty. Such a right, now treated as a human right of the persons who are disabled, has its roots in Arti Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the principle of nondiscrimination against persons with disabilities or equality towards such persons implies not only preventing discrimination but goes beyond in remedying discrimination. In concrete terms, it means embracing the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation.
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 1995 Act, when read along with the International Declaration and Charter, send an eloquent message that there iss no question of sympathising with PwDs and extending them medical or other help. The subject of the rights of persons with disabilities should be approached from a human rights perspective, which recognises that persons with disabilities are entitled to eenjoy the full range of internationally guaranteed rights and freedoms without discrimination on the grounds of disability. This creates an obligation on the part of the State to take positive measures to ensure that in reality persons with disabilities get enabled to exercise those rights. There should be an insistence on the full measure of general human rights guarantees in the case of persons with disabilities, as well as the development of specific instruments that refine and give detailed contextual content ntent of those general guarantees. There should be full recognition of the fact that persons with disability are an integral part of the community, equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms as others."
others.
Page 7 of 14
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
5. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit.
He submits that while registering on the Online Application Registration System (OARS) portal, the applicant furnished the following undertaking:
1. "I hereby certify that all statement made in this applicant are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and have been filled by me.
2. I understand that in the event of information being found false or incorrect at any stage orr any ineligibility being detected before or after the examination, my candidature/selection/appointment is liable to be cancelled/terminated automatically without any notice to me and act action can be taken against me by DSSSB.
D
3. The information submitted herein shall be treated as final in respect of my candidature.
4. I also declare that I have informed my head of office/department m writing(For Government Employee only)
5. I hereby certify that this is my sole application for registration and that any additional registration would lead to cancelation of all such multiple registrations".
6. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had also certified as under:
"I have seen the preview and verified that all the details filled by me are correct. I will not claim any change in my details after final submission of registration form."
7. It is submitted that after submission of the application, no changes in candidate credentials are permitted on the OARS portal.
Reliance has also been placed upon Clause Clause 9 of Advertisement No. 07/2023, which reads as under:
Page 8 of 14SURAJ BISHT Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025 "IMPORTANT IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES:
Request for change/ correction in any particulars of the Application Form including change of category, once submitted, will not be entertained under any circumstances. Such requests received through Post! Fax! Email/ By hand, etc. will neither be entertained entertained nor any correspondence will be made."
8. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid recruitment policy of the Board, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the advertisement itself specifically stipulates that any request for change/co change/correction rrection in the particulars of the Application Form, including change of category, once submitted, shall not be entertained under any circumstances. He further submits that though the facts of the present case may invite sympathetic consideration, the term terms and conditions governing the recruitment process are sacrosanct in nature and are uniformly applicable to all candidates irrespective of whether they belong to the PwD category or otherwise. It is contended that the application form is required to be filled filled carefully and correctly at the initial stage itself and that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are binding upon both the parties. Learned counsel further submits, on instructions, that no correction window facility was provided on the DSSSB OARS portal. He has also drawn our attention to the declaration furnished by the applicant, which reads as under:
"I have seen the preview and verified all the details entered by me are correct. I will not claim any changes in my details after final subm submission of application."Page 9 of 14
SURAJ BISHT Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
9. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of UPSC vs. S. Krishna Chaitanya 2011 (14) SCC 227.
22710.. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material aterial available on record. The core issue which arises for consideration in the present matter is whether a PwD candidate, who inadvertently failed to correctly indicate her disability category while filling the online application form, can be denied the benefit of reservation and reasonable accommodation guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and whether such omission on the part of a 100% visually impaired candidate constitutes a trivial or fatal defect warranting rejection of her candidature.
11.. Upon consideration of the factual matrix, the following facts emerge undisputed:
i. The applicant is a 100% visually impaired candidate;
ii. The concept of reasonable accommodation is statutorily recognized under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;
iii. The applicant is already serving as a TGT (Social Science) in the same department.
Page 10 of 14
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
12.. It is also significant to note that neither the case of the applicant nor that of the respondents involves any allegation of ffraud, misrepresentation or wrongful gain derived by the applicant. The rejection of the applicant's claim is solely on account of non non-
reflection of the PwD category in the application form. It is also not disputed that no correction window facility was made made available to the candidates. We further notice that although the applicant was reflected under the UR category, the sub-category sub category details indicated "DC3Y: Visual (VH) (Blind), PH: Visual (VH) (Blind)" and the examination fee stood exempted. These facts prima prima facie demonstrate that the applicant could not have been treated as a regular UR candidate devoid of disability status.
13. In a recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 13481/2025 dated 22.12.2025 titled Dr. Sachin Kumar umar vs. National Institute of Education Planning and Administration through its Vice Chancellor & Ors., Ors., wherein the Court observed as under:
"73. In the present case, since the concerned post of Assistant Professor is admittedly an entry-level level post, this Court finds substance in the contentions put forth by Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, predicated on the decisions laid down in Ajay Hasia (supra), Lila Dhar (supra) and Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), that recruitment to an entry-level entry level post cannot be made solely on the basis of viva-voce/interview.
voce/interview.
*************
Page 11 of 14
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
85. Such an outcome, viewed through the prism of constitutional morality, raises serious doubts. It suggests not the failure of the candidates, but the failure of the process itself. In Vikash Kumar (supra), (supra), the Supreme Court held that reasonable accommodation is not a concession, but a facet of substantive equality, flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of ou our Constitution read with the RPwD Act.. In the present case, beyond stating that there was no upper age limit, no modification, accommodation or relaxation in the evaluation process was shown to have been granted to PwD candidates. The relaxation demonstrated by the learned Counsel for the respondent appears to be merely facial and lip-service, lip service, which fails on the anvil of providing reasonable accommodation as envisaged by the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar (supra). Such a formalistic interpretation of relaxation cannot satisfy the high constitutional and statutory threshold envisaged in the RPwD Act.
86. Further, Clause 11.1 of the DoPT OM dated 15.01.2018, specifically provides that where PwD candidates are not selected on general standards, they may be selected on relaxed standards, provided they are not found unfit. The Supreme Court in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services es (supra) clarified that reservations for PwD must be implemented in a meaningful and effective manner, by adopting relaxed standards and reasonable accommodation so that structural disadvantages faced by PwD candidates are neutralised, rather than being reinforced by rigid procedures.
87. This Court cannot be oblivious to the systemic risk that, if such an approach is approved, institutions may routinely declare PwBD candidates "not suitable" in one or two cycles and thereby pave the way for de-reservation n or conversion, effectively negating the legislative intent behind reservations for PwD.
*************
91. In the absence of any structured interview criteria, pre pre-defined benchmarks, application of relaxed standards or reasonable accommodation, the respondents' ndents' invocation of Clause 4.1.I.B of the UGC Regulations becomes a mere facade to legitimise an otherwise arbitrary and exclusionary process.
92. The preliminary contention raised by the respondents of estoppel on part of the petitioner due to participation participa is untenable. In Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar34, Bihar34 the Supremee Court clarified that participation in a selection process does not preclude a candidate from assailing the legality of the process process where the challenge goes to the root of the procedure and alleges violation of statutory and constitutional norms. In the present case, the petitioner challenges the very structure and legality of the recruitment mechanism, rendering the doctrine of estoppel inapplicable.
34 (2019) 20 SCC 17
Page 12 of 14
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025
93. In the light of foregoing discussions, this Court records the following conclusions:
a) The reservation of the post for PwBD was not implemented in conformity with the RPwD Act, 2016 read with the DoPT OM dated 15.01.2018 and the constitutional guarantee of substantive equality and reasonable accommodation.
b) The 100% interview-based based selection process, as actually applied by the respondents without structured structured criteria, objective benchmarks, internal distribution of marks or recorded reasons is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
c) The conversion of the PwBD vacancy into an EWS-PwBD EWS PwBD vacancy is contrary to the horizontal nature reservations for PwD under Section 34 of the RPwD Act and is inconsistent with DoPT OMs dated 15.01.2018 and 31.01.2019 governing the carry forward rule.
d) Clause 4.1.I.B of the UGC Regulations, 2018 is not unconstitutional per se; however, it is read down to the extent that it shall not be applied to permit or sustain a wholly unstructured, unstructured, unguided and exclusively interview-based based selection process. The Clause must henceforth be interpreted and applied in consonance with Clauses 5.2 and 6.0 of the UGC Regulations of 2018, ensuring structured, objective and transparent evaluation of candidates prior to and alongside the interview stage.
stage."
14.. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law and the factual circumstances noticed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the respondents ought to adopt a pragmatic and accommodative approach while dealing with the candidature of the applica applicant, particularly keeping in mind the mandate of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Since the applicant was provisionally permitted to participate in the examination pursuant to the interim order dated 14.07.2 14.07.2025 along with the assistance of a scribe, we are of the considered opinion that her candidature deserves to be considered under the PwD category. Accordingly, upon declaration of the result pursuant to Page 13 of 14 SURAJ BISHT Item No.70 (Court-4) O.A. No.2612/2025 Advertisement No. 07/2023, the respondents are directed directed to consider the candidature of the applicant under the PwD category strictly in accordance with her own merit and extend all consequential benefits admissible under law. In the event the applicant qualifies the examination, the offer of appointment shall shall be issued accordingly.
15.. With the above directions, the Original Application is allowed.
All pending MAs, s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs costs.
((Dr. Anand S Khati)) (Manish
Manish Garg
Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 14 of 14
SURAJ BISHT