Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pooja Devi vs Staff Selection Commission on 20 February, 2023
1
OA No.2416 of 2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2416/2021
Reserved on: 02.02.2023
Pronounced on: 20.02.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Pooja Devi
D/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh (PIS No.28011059)
R/o Village & PO Chuliana,
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana - 124 501.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission through
Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 032.
2. The Regional Director (NR)
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. His Excellency Lt. Governor of Delhi
(Administrator of Delhi Police)
GNCT of Delhi, Raj Bhawan,
Shamnath Marg, Delhi - 54.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police, Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
Near Bangla Sahib Gurudwara,
New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment)
Delhi Police, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi - 110 009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Ranjan Tyagi,
Mr. Tanmay Vashishtha for Mr. Amit
Yadav).
2
OA No.2416 of 2021
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-
1.1 Respondent no.1-SSC (recruiting agency) at the instance of the user department (Delhi Police) advertised vacancies of Constable (Executive) Male and Female for Delhi Police Examination, 2020. 1.2 The applicant applied for the post of Constable (Executive) Female under OBC category and appeared in the Computer Based Examination (CBE) on 27.11.2020. She was declared qualified to participate in the Physical Endurance & Measurement Test (PE&MT). Accordingly, she appeared for PE&MT on 06.08.2021 and her height was measured as 155.8 cms against the required height of 157 cm. However, in terms of para 11.17.2.3 of the advertisement, the user department granted relaxation of 5 cm in height to the applicant, who claimed to be the ward of a deceased Delhi Police personnel and she was declared qualified.
1.3 Subsequently, she appeared for document verification and updation of data on "Webtool" provided by respondent no.1. She was informed by the 3 OA No.2416 of 2021 Recruitment Cell of Delhi Police that her online portal was not accepting her detail relating to ward of Police personnel as she had not marked herself to be so in Column No.16 at the time of online filling up of the Application Form.
1.4 Aggrieved, the applicant immediately preferred a representation to the Recruitment Cell on the same day informing about her bona fide and inadvertent error while filling the Application form in cyber café to the effect that she had filled „No‟ in Column No.16 relating to „ward of police personnel‟ whereas her father was a police personnel.
1.5 When she received no response to her representation, she approached this Tribunal by way of OA No.1837 of 2021. During the pendency of the said OA, the User Department wrote a letter dated 02.09.2021 to the SSC recommending that the request of the applicant for correction in Column No.16 of the Application Form be allowed by treating her to be the ward of deceased police personnel and consequently grant her relaxation of 5 cm in height. Resultantly, the said OA was disposed of having become infructuous. 4 OA No.2416 of 2021 1.6 The applicant was shocked to receive an order dated 30.09.2021 informing her that the Recruiting Agency (SSC) had not acceded to her request by erroneously invoking Point No.8.6 of Notice of Examination as the same pertains to written examination and not to PE&MT. Moreover, the Recruiting Agency (SSC) has no role in ascertaining the physical standard of a candidate as it is the User Department to decide as to whether a candidate meets the physical standard for the post or not in terms of the medical standard prescribed.
1.7 Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. Declare and hold that reliance placed by the respondents on Point 8.6 of the Notice of Examination qua the Applicant is misdirection in law and it could not have been done. And b. Quash and set aside order dated 30.09.2021, whereby the request of the applicant was not acceded to. And c. Direct the respondents (SSC) to comply with the letter/order dated 02.09.2021 issued by Commissioner of Police (Head of the User/Nodal Department) in its true letter and spirit by treating the applicant as ward of the deceased Delhi Police Personnel by deemed rectification of inadvertent mistake committed by the applicant at the time of filling up the online application form and as a consequence thereof to grant relaxation of height (5cm) to the applicant in terms of the recruitment rules read with Advertisement 5 OA No.2416 of 2021 Notice read with Standing Order No.212/2020 issued by Delhi Police. And d. Direct the respondents to process the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) (Female)-2020 in Delhi Police, after granting her relaxation in height (5 cm) by treating her as ward of deceased Delhi Police Personnel, as per her merit and if she is found eligible and suitable for the above noted post she may be appointed to the post of Constable (Executive) (Female) -2020 in Delhi Police along with all consequential benefits viz. seniority, promotion, fixation of pay along with her batch-mates, back wages etc. And e. Award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/or f. Pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
1.8 In support of applicant‟s claim, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi:-
i) Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. vs. Tapan Neeraj & Ors. [WP(C) No.814/2014 decided on 23.07.2014]
ii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Sumit Kumar [WP (C) No.4829/2017 decided on 10.08.2017]
iii) Lekhraj Meena vs. Union of India & Ors.
[WP(C) No.11004/2020 decided on 23.12.2020].
2. Per contra, the respondents have filed counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant. Apart from narrating factual matrix of the case, they have stated that while submitting online application form, it was incumbent upon 6 OA No.2416 of 2021 the aspirant candidate to check that he/she had filled the correct details in each field of the application form. It was clearly mentioned in the instructions to fill the application form that after submission of the online application form, no change/correction/modification would be allowed under any circumstances irrespective of requests having been received in any form like post, fax, email, by hand etc. 2.1 The applicant participated in PE&MT where her height was measured as 155.8 cm. After qualifying all events, she appeared for document verification and updatation of data on "webtool". She produced police ward certificate to avail benefit of relaxation in height under the category of „police ward‟ as her height was less than the requisite height of 157 cm. But the online data of the applicant showed that while filling up online application form, she had filled "No" in Column No.16 - „Whether son/daughter of serving, retired or deceased personnel/Multi-Tasking Staff of Delhi Police‟. Therefore, she was not granted the relaxation in height.
2.2 Though she submitted a representation to the User Department which, in turn, after recommending her case for relaxation in height, forwarded the same to the Recruiting Agency (SSC) for correction in Column No.16 by 7 OA No.2416 of 2021 modifying from "No" to "Yes" enabling her to get the benefit of relaxation in height. But the said request of the applicant having been recommended by the User Department was not acceded to by the Recruiting Agency in view of the clear provision of the Examination Notice that no change/correction/modification would be allowed under any circumstances even if the request is received in any form like post, fax, email, by hand etc. after submission of online application form. The said request was, therefore, rejected vide order dated 23.09.2021 stating that permitting correction in Application Form of the applicant would be injustice to other aspiring candidates, which was conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 30.09.2021. 2.3 A candidate for any examination for that matter is required to fill the online application form with his eyes wide open and before submitting the online application, he/she also has an opportunity to recheck and make necessary corrections on the computer then and there as has been held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.241/2017 decided on 05.01.2017. 2.4 Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision in LPA No.300/2014 wherein the Hon‟ble High Court of Patna clearly held as under:-
8OA No.2416 of 2021
"The instruction in the advertisement and in the Application Form was clear that a candidate who does not opt for reserved category will have to be treated as General Category Candidate. The officers conducting the test have no authority to change the terms of the advertisement or rule of application still further, there can be many others who were similarly situated who may have given their category wrongly in the application form. Benefit to one will mean denial of benefit to many others. It will be an unfair process."
2.5 To contend that if the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same, learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.4597 of 2019] wherein it has been held as under:-
"If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed n accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same."
2.6 Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. [2011 (12) SCC 85].
9OA No.2416 of 2021 2.7 Learned counsel for the respondents stated that as the applicant was not vigilant enough to correctly fill up each and every column of the application form, she cannot ask for relaxation of height without showing herself to be the ward of police personnel. Hence, her candidature was rightly rejected by the respondents.
3. We have heard Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Ranjan Tyagi and Mr. Tanmay for Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also gone through the citations relied upon by learned counsels for both the parties as also the written synopsis filed by them.
4. The sole issue to be adjudicated by this Tribunal is whether the applicant, who has filled "No" against Column No.16 pertaining to ward of police personnel at the time of filling up online Application Form, can be allowed relaxation in height.
4.1 It is true that the Examination Notice and Recruitment Rules provide for relaxation in height to the wards of police personnel only if an aspiring candidate mentions about the same in the column meant for the same. It is also noticed that the applicant had filled "No" in 10 OA No.2416 of 2021 Column No. 16 while submitting her online application form. It is not disputed that the applicant requested for correction in the aforesaid column when her height was measured less than the requisite height, which is not permissible at a later stage as it was clearly stipulated in the Examination Notice that no change/correction/ modification would be allowed under any circumstances even if the request is received in any form like post, fax, email, by hand etc. after submission of online application form. It is the duty of candidates to fill the online application form with eyes wide open and before submitting the online application to recheck and make necessary corrections on the computer then and there. But the applicant has failed to do so. Had she been vigilant enough in filling up the online application form, this type of error would not have occurred. Once she herself has failed to mention that she was the ward of a deceased police personnel, she cannot be permitted to have relaxation in height to be eligible for offer of appointment. 4.2 Having gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, we find such decisions are not relevant being distinguishable from the facts of the instant OA.
11OA No.2416 of 2021
5. In conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant cannot be allowed any relief for the error committed by her. It was she who was required to give correct details while filling up online Application Form. Had she done so, the respondents would have granted the required relaxation in height to her. Hence, we find that the instant OA is devoid of merit.
5.1 In view of the above discussion, the instant OA is dismissed.
6. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) /na/