Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shishma vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation Of ... on 21 May, 2025
1
OA. No.1130/2019
Item No. 63 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA. No.1130/2019
Reserved on 26.03.2025
Pronounced on 21.05.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Shishma (Aged about 27 years)
Primary Teacher
D/o Sh. Ram Niwas
R/o VPO Jant, Distt. Rewari, Haryana-122502
Group 'B'
Sub.: Appointment
Mobile: 9467643954
.... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Ranjit Sharma)
VERSUS
1. South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through
Commissioner
S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002
2. DSSSB Through Secreary FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
.... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Mr. Girish C Jha, MR. D.S. Mahendrum Ms. Manisha
Tyagi)
2
OA. No.1130/2019
Item No. 63 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) The present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
"i) to direct the respondents to the declare the result of the applicant against hier Roll No. 2800032935, Post Code 16/17 in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/18 and consider her for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher under MCD with all consequential benefits, AND/OR
(ii) Pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Respondent No. 2 had issued Advertisement No. 01/2018, Post Code 16/17, for the post of Primary Teacher in the three Municipal Corporations of Delhi. The applicant, being fully eligible under the terms of the advertisement, applied under the General Category. Upon scrutiny, he was allotted Roll No. 2800032935 and was issued an admit card to appear in the written examination held on 30.08.2018.
3. The applicant appeared at the Examination Centre, namely SKV (Raja Ram Mohan Roy), Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17. However, there was a delay in the distribution of the Question Paper and OMR Answer Sheet, causing disturbance to several candidates, including the applicant. In the process, while the applicant correctly wrote his Roll Number in numerals in the designated box, he inadvertently blackened a wrong digit while encoding it. Upon noticing the error, the applicant immediately sought permission from the 3 OA. No.1130/2019 Item No. 63 (C-4) Invigilator to correct it. The Invigilator permitted the correction, but as a result, both the incorrect and correct digits remained blackened. The Invigilator assured the applicant that this error would be overlooked during evaluation. However it seems due to the minor error in bubbling the roll no, applicant's OMR sheet has not been evaluated and result not declared.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the issue raised herein is squarely covered by several earlier decisions of this Tribunal, including OA No. 215/2017, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 10.08.2017. It was held therein that a bona fide mistake in bubbling, where the roll number has been correctly written and the discrepancy brought to the notice of the Invigilator, should not result in cancellation of candidature.
5. In the present case, the applicant correctly mentioned the Roll Number in numerals. The bubbling error was brought to the notice of the Invigilator, who permitted the rectification. However, it appears the respondents failed to take this into account and rejected the applicant's candidature.
6. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant had also raised objections against erroneous questions in the answer key. Representations were filed, RTI applications were submitted, and even candidates scoring significantly less than the applicant were considered, while the applicant was excluded without due consideration of relevant judgments. Subsequently, OA 4 OA. No.1130/2019 Item No. 63 (C-4) No. 2366/2018 was filed and disposed of with a direction to consider the applicant's representation in light of binding precedents. However, the same was rejected again, disregarding the precedents cited. Resulting in the presen OA.
7. In response to the OA, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the instructions in the question booklet clearly state that proper bubbling of the Roll Number is mandatory. Specifically:
o Point No. 5 warns that failure to fill the Roll Number correctly would result in zero marks.
o Points No. 14 and 16 provide illustrations and caution that only properly bubbled entries will be read by the scanning machine.
o The OMR sheet also includes a note that multiple bubbles for a single entry will be treated as incorrect.
8. It is not disputed that a bubbling error occurred. The respondents have, therefore, declined to evaluate the answer sheet on the ground that the Roll Number is the only candidate identifier and must be properly encoded.
9. The respondents relied on OA No. 176/2021 (Kapil Kumar vs. DSSSB & Ors.), wherein the Tribunal had dismissed the OA on the similar plea.
10. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant referred to OA No. 2216/2019 (Babita vs. Union of India & Ors.), decided on 11.02.2025, wherein it was held that a trivial error in bubbling, despite correct entry in 5 OA. No.1130/2019 Item No. 63 (C-4) numerals and correction attested by the Invigilator, should not lead to rejection. The Tribunal emphasized that rejection on hyper-technical grounds would amount to a miscarriage of justice, especially where the applicant is otherwise meritorious.
11. Learned counsel also relied on OA Nos. 215/2017 and 263/2017, decided on 21.02.2017, wherein the Tribunal held that inadvertent omissions or minor lapses caused due to examination stress should not disqualify meritorious candidates. It was also observed that it is the duty of the Invigilator to verify and ensure correct filling of details before signing the OMR sheet.
12. Further, the applicant cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 1845/2024 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Vinay Kumar), decided on 02.04.2025, where similar bubbling errors were condoned by the Court, deeming them non-substantive.
13. On the other hand respondents have relied upon the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1832/2023 (Ms. Kusum Gupta vs. DSSSB), decided on 06.12.2024, and dismissed the OA by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4807/2022, decided on 25.07.2022.
14. In Mahendra Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that adherence to examination instructions is paramount, and deviation from such instructions--particularly regarding the encoding of Roll Number on the 6 OA. No.1130/2019 Item No. 63 (C-4) OMR sheet--cannot be condoned, even in cases where the mistake is claimed to be inadvertent. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment lay down that such instructions are not mere formalities but essential for the integrity of the examination process, for the sake of clarity paragraph 13 & 14 reads as under:-
"13. The sole reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court of time gap between the filling up of the application form and the examination, and hence inadvertent filling up of OMR sheet in Hindi by the writ petitioner is based on surmises and conjectures. Once the writ petitioner has filled the application form in English, having also signed in English, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent mistake when he has written the para in Hindi. Such writing in different language violates the instruction clearly mentioned in the advertisement.
14. The argument of Mr. Bhushan that use of different language is not followed by any consequence and, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory is not tenable. The language chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has filled up the application form alone appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone."
15. After hearing learned counsel for both parties, perusing the material on record, and considering the binding precedents, we are of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered by the reasoning adopted by us in OA No. 1832/2023 (Kusum Gupta) and the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh's case.
16. Though the Tribunal empathizes with the applicant's situation and acknowledges that he had scored significantly above the cutoff, the fact remains that proper bubbling of the Roll Number is a core and mandatory requirement. The invigilator's permission or subsequent correction cannot 7 OA. No.1130/2019 Item No. 63 (C-4) override this requirement, as the evaluation process is fully automated and cannot accommodate manual interventions.
17. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no merit in the present Original Application and the same is hereby dismissed, in view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and view taken by this very Bench in a recent decision. We find no reason to deviate from the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/