Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asha vs Govt. Of Nctd on 30 January, 2025
1
OA. No.1425/2018
Item No. 49 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1425/2018
This the 30th Day of January, 2024
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Asha
D/6 Sh. Prahlad Singh ·
R/o Village Bazitpur, PO Nangal Thakran,
Delhi - 110039
Aged about 35 years
(Group 'B')
(Candidate towards the post of TGT (Computer Science)
.... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. Shakib Malik,
Ms. Divya Aggarwal, Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Ms. Tanya Rose and
Mr. Pradeep Kumar)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,··
A-Wing 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate
New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (OSSSB)
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi- 92
3. The Director
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54
.... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Dr. Monika Bhargava with Mr. Amit Yadav,
Mr. Amit Anand)
2
OA. No.1425/2018
Item No. 49 (C-4)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) The present OA is filed against the Rejection Notice No. 209, issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was an aspirant for the post of TGT (Computer Science) under Post Code - 192/14, for appointment in the Directorate of Education. She had participated in the recruitment exercise, however, on the scrutiny of the documents submitted by the candidates in the e-dossier module, the respondent DSSSB has cancelled her candidature. Vide the impugned rejection notice, the candidature of the applicant who had participated under the OBC category with Roll No. 13802769, was rejected with the remarks "Not having requisite qualification as per Recruitment Rules".
3. Aggrieved with this rejection notice issued on 10.11.2017, the present OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
a) Quash and set aside the impugned order/action of the respondents whereby they have placed the applicant in the 3 OA. No.1425/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) Rejection Notice No. 209 dated10/11/2017 (Annexure A/1 ). The applicant's roll no appears at SI. No. 73 under OBC category;
b) Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of TGT (Computer Science) Post Code 192/14;
c) Accord all consequential' benefits, including monetary and ·seniority benefits;
d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant.
4. Counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the RR's for the post of TGT (Computer Science) which are as under:-
Bachelor's Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University.
OR Graduation in Computer Science from a recognized University (Provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject).
OR BE/B. Tech. (Computer Science/ Information Technology) from a recognized University.
OR Graduation in any subject and A level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt. of India."
5. Counsel submits that although the applicant does not have the Graduate degree in computer Science, she has a master's degree i.e. MCA (Masters in Computer 4 OA. No.1425/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) Applications). That the master's degree being higher than a graduate degree would mean that the requirement of the RR's is fulfilled. Therefore, the applicant is fully qualified. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a discrepancy in the stand of the respondents. Earlier, they had said that the applicant did not meet the qualifications as per the recruitment rules. Now they have shifted their stand and have stated that the applicant did not upload her degree and mark sheets, hence, her candidature could not be nominated. Hence the OA.
6. On issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit on 23.05.2019. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have adopted a different stand than the one adopted by them while rejecting the candidature. Now the respondents state that the Board has considered the candidates who had uploaded the mark sheets for M.SC/MCA and has provisionally nominated them to the post of TGT (Computer Science). Since the applicant did not upload her MCA degree and marksheets, her candidature could not be considered for nomination to the said post.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to page 103 of the rejoinder (Annexure A-9). This is a notice 5 OA. No.1425/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) issued by the DSSSB calling for the attention of the candidates specific to the post of TGT (Computer Science) under the same postcode. As per this notice, the DSSSB was pleased to give a last and final opportunity to the candidates to upload their deficient documents within ten days. The candidates were advised to check the e-dossier module for the deficient documents and upload the same w.e.f. 13.10.2017 to 22.10.2017.
8. The applicant submits that pursuant to this notice, the applicant had attempted uploading the deficient documents on many occasions, notably on 16.10.2017, then again on 18.10.2017, 19.10.2017, 20.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 24.10.2017. He submits that every time the applicant attempted to upload, there was a technical roadblock in the website/e-dossier module. As such, the applicant could not upload the documents within the said period. The applicant wrote e-mails to the respondents requesting a chance to file her documents online since she was facing a technical glitch. A copy of e-mails has been attached by the applicant with the rejoinder to show his bona fide that she had attempted to upload the documents but could not do so due to technical issues.
6OA. No.1425/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4)
9. At this, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that at the time of recruitment, the requirement as per the recruitment rules was a graduate degree, as such candidature of the applicant was not considered since the applicant did not possess a degree as per the recruitment rules rather she had a Bachelor degree in Arts. The respondents further submit that by the time the OA was filed before the Tribunal and noticeswere issued in the OA, the respondents on their own had issued notice dated 12.10.2017 calling for additional documents and had opened a ten-day window for the candidates to upload their documents as per the e-dossier module. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the applicant failed to upload the documents during the ten-day window and as such, her candidature cannot be considered.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the e-mails written by her during these ten days to the respondent- DSSSB, which have been annexed along with the OA itself. The respondents have chosen not to answer the same, they have chosen to remain silent about the said e-mails in their counter affidavit as well. He submits that as per law of pleadings and evidence, the e-mails sent by the applicant are valid evidence to show that they were received by the 7 OA. No.1425/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) DSSSB, however, the DSSSB chose to ignore the e-mails. He submits that for the same recruitment and under the same postcode, the DSSSB has selected other candidates who have MCA degree which is and does not have a graduate degree in Computer Science as per the requirement of the recruitment rules. He therefore submits that the denial of appointment/rejection has also caused prejudice and discrimination to the applicant.
11. At this, the learned counsel for the respondents further stated that while the recruitment and selections were ongoing, the respondents DSSSB were considering those candidates having a Masters degree in Computer Applications in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Directorate of Education vs. Neelam Rana WP (C) No. 575/2013. Moreover, recently the Hon'ble High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Pooja Devi W.P. (C) No. 11504/2023 has held that the possession of higher qualification shall not also subsume the lower qualification.
12. Therefore, in terms of Pooja Devi (supra), the candidature of the applicant cannot be considered since she does not possess the requisite graduation degree in the subject.
8OA. No.1425/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4)
13. We have considered the rival submissions. Indeed it is an admitted fact that the applicant only possesses a graduation degree in Arts subject and comparing the same with the requirement of the recruitment rules, the applicant would not be considered eligible, however, it is also an admitted fact that the applicant does possess an MCA degree.
14. The other distinguishing proven fact is that during the ten-day window opened by the respondents, the applicant had tried to upload the deficient documents, however, she faced technical glitches. She had written various e-mails requesting help, the same remained unanswered.
15. Given the peculiar facts, Pooja Devi (supra) is not strictly applicable. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the present OA can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider her candidature and her MCA degree and to decide the same within three weeks. We are constrained to pass this order since in our opinion every candidate has to have the same opportunity. Others under the same post code with MCA degrees have been considered and appointed, for some reason, the opportunity was lost by the applicant and therefore, it 9 OA. No.1425/2018 Item No. 49 (C-4) would be in the interest of equity and fair play that she be given one chance. The OA is disposed of accordingly.
16. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nk/