Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mohit vs Govt. Of Nctd on 19 January, 2024
1
OA No. 1854/2019
Item No.45/C-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
Ο.Α. No. 1854/2019
Reserved on: 05.01.2024
Pronounced on: 19.01.2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Mohit
Age 23 years, DASS - IV
S/o Sh. Krishan,
R/o Ward No. 7, Bag Wali Gali,
Kharkhora, Sonipat, Haryana. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K.Jain)
Versus
1. The Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
through the Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi - 92. ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):
2 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4
1. The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief(s):-
"(a) Quash and set aside the result notice number 790 dated 29.05.2019 to the extent that the candidature of the Applicant to the post code 61/2015 has been rejected by the Respondents and;
(b) Direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for the Post Code No.61/2015 as well and further process the result of the applicant accordingly and appoint him to the post of DASS -IV in Services Department., GNCT of Delhi in accordance with his merit position;
(c) award costs of the proceedings and,
(d) pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
2.1 The applicant participated in the selection process initiated by the DSSSB vide advertisement notice No. 1/2015 for the post of DASS Grade-IV. After having successful completion of the different stages of the selection process, the applicant's roll number appeared in the result notice dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure A-5) in the list of candidates who qualified the skill test. Vide the said notice dated 24.5.2018, the respondents directed the candidates to upload e-dossier in respect of the corrections of the information furnished by the candidates in their online 3 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 application forms. The selected candidates were directed to upload the e-dossier by 12.6.2018 which was further extended till 18.6.2018. Vide result notice dated 16.7.2018, the candidature of the present applicant was kept pending (paragraph 19 of the Annexure A-7). It was indicated that the roll number of the applicant has been kept pending for want of 12 pass certificate. The applicant states that in view of the said communication, he immediately wrote a representation dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure A-8) requesting the respondents to inform him at his e-mail or phone number so that he would submit his 12 mark sheet. He states that since the website of the respondents did not take the said documents, after the result notice, the only option left with the applicant was to provide the said documents through the E-mail. He states that after the said representation submitted to the respondents he approached to the Public Grievances Cell of the DSSSB for his grievance on 18.01.2019. The Public Grievances Cell replied to the applicant vide communication dated 29.01.2019 stating that the candidature of the applicant is still pending to obtain the documents through E-mail ID. As the documents provided by the applicant could not be uploaded earlier, the candidature of the applicant was kept pending since 4 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 29.01.2019. The candidature of the applicant has been Incorrectly rejected by the respondents by the result notice dated 29.05.2019 for the reason 'failing to upload E-dossiers on the scheduled time." He states that in the result notice dated 16.07.2018, the candidature of the applicant was kept pending want of 12th pass the documents. The order dated 29.05.2019 is infact an afterthought. It could only be a case of deficiency of documents and not uploading the documents on scheduled time.
2.2. Learned counsel for applicant draws strength from a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil appeal No. 1/2024 decided on 02.01.2024 and states that a bonafide error on behalf of the applicant has been condoned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment. In the present case also the applicant has tried to upload his documents which have not reached to the respondents, may be because of technical glitch.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposes the present OA. He does not disputes that the applicant's roll number finds mention in the list of selected candidates in the result announced on 24.05.2018. Though, the applicant may have uploaded his E-dossiers within the time 5 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 prescribed however, his candidature was kept pending for the reason:-
"candidates having roll number 15430603, 15448055, 15435912, 15445791, 5433137 for seeking their 12th documents."
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents clarified that a clarification has been got obtained from the user department regarding the 12th documents. It is a case where the E- Dossiers of the applicant were deficient for want of proof of 12 pass. The applicant did not upload the documents regarding his 12th pass along with the E-dossiers and, therefore, the candidature of the applicant was rejected. He states that sufficient time was provided to the applicant to upload his E-dossiers and if the applicant was vigilant enough he could have done the needful to upload his E- dossiers as advised in the advertisement notification. Since the applicant failed to do so, the candidature of the applicant has been rightly rejected. He further draws attention to the result notice dated 24.05.2018, wherein the instruction have been given to the candidate and the applicants were obliged to follow the same strictly. 6 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 3.2 In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondents draws strength from the judgment dated 05.08.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 6349/2011, order dated 18.2.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 549/2019 titled Mr. Puspinder Singh Parnam vs. DSSSB & Anr. This Tribunal vide the said order dismissed this OA of the candidate who failed to upload the e-dossiers within stipulated period. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal vide order dated 25.03.2019.
The learned counsel for the respondents further cited the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CWP No. 4085/2019 in the matter of Jyoti vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein in a similar case, the failure to upload the e-dossier by the candidate though with sufficient reason, (she was pregnant and was considered out of form) unpardonable and the petitioner did not get any relief.
4. We have heard the averments made by both the counsels and perused the records of the case thoroughly.
5. In the instant case, the applicant has submitted representation dated 07.06.2018 stating that he has 7 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 uploaded all the necessary documents, however, he has not been allotted his e-dossier number. This application has been duly received by the respondents DSSSB. Subsequently, after the declaration of the skill test result on 16.07.2018, the applicant also made representation dated 19.07.2018, and 02.08.2018, again reminding to the respondents that he could not get his e- dossier number due to web error. He has subsequently made further representations 26.11.2018, 24.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 for physically verifying the documents to find out that all the documents he submitted along with the initial application were authentic. As the applicant has made representation well before the declaration of the skill test dated 16.07.2018 and immediately after the declaration of the skill test on 19.07.2018, it was the duty of the respondents to address to the specific problem faced by the applicant regarding uploading of his e-dossier and non - receipt of e-dossier number. The 8 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 result notification dated 24.05.2018 states that the selected candidates shall upload the e-dossier by 18.06.2018. When the applicant was facing peculiar problem of uploading and getting the e-dossier number vide his application dated 07.06.2018, the respondents should have acted upon his application and should have helped him or should have given a specific reason as to why his e-dossier number could not be given. It could have stated that their digital e- platform is working and perfectly alright and it was not due to any deficiency in the platform that the applicant could not upload his e-dossier. In absence of such communication, the last date for uploading the e-dossier elapsed as the stipulated date for uploading his e-dossier was 18.6.2018. Thereafter the digital platform might have been closed and the applicant could not upload the e-dossier. As there was no system of accepting physical dossiers, and the applicant could not upload e-dossier, his 12th pass certificate could not be verified for which his 9 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 candidature was rejected. On the face of this, it seems that the deficiencies on account of lack of prompt action on the part of the respondents addressing the grievance or the difficulties faced by the applicant resulted in rejection of his candidature on technical grounds, though he has been successful in the skill test.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Vashist Narayan Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2024) (arising out of SLP No. 12230 of 2023. The facts and circumstances of the Vashist Narayan Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors (supra) case is quite different than the present case. In the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors (supra) case there was inadvertent error on the part of the applicant by writing his date of birth as 08.12.1997 instead 18.12.1997. In the instant case it was not a minor mistake by the applicant but it is non- 10 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 uploading of his e-dossier in support of his e- certificates submitting at the time of initial filling up of the application form.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents have cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6349/2011 in Sec., U.P.S.C. & Anr. Vs. S. Krishna Chaitanaya (supra). This judgment has no relevance in the instant case as that judgment deals with passing of interim orders and its repercussions in case of competitive examination held by the UPSC. In the instant case, the OA is being finally heard. The learned counsel for the respondents have further cited the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 549/2019, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 25.03.2019. He has further cited the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mrs.Jyoti vs.GNCT in WPC No.4085/19). The facts and circumstances obtaining in both the cases are distinguishable from those in the present case. In view of this, ratio of the judgments as quoted by the 11 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 learned counsel for the respondents is also not applicable in the instant case.
8. Having said that, the fact that the respondents have not acted promptly on the application dated 07.06.2018 by the applicant attending the difficulties he is facing for uploading his e-dossier and getting the e-dossier number. The applicant deserves to get a fair chance in the selection process. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the the physical records of the applicant regarding eligibility, particularly passing of 12th grade examination. If he is otherwise found eligible to be appointed for the said post under Advertisement to Post Code No. 61/2015, he shall be offered appointment forthwith. If there is no vacancy available regarding the post in respect of post code No.61/2015 under the concerned category, the respondents are directed to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the present applicant. The present applicant shall be given consequential 12 OA No. 1854/2019 Item No.45/C-4 seniority and all benefit in service with effect from the date when the last candidate belonging the same category was given appointment. This exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order.
9. The OA is disposed of in the above manner with no order as to the costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/mk/