Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Seema Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 3362/2010
New Delhi this the 3rd day of January, 2012
Honble Mr.G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member(A)
Mrs. Seema Devi
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
D/o Shri Ram Phul
R/o RZ-H-4, Dharampura Colony,
Nazafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
. Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Avdesh Kumar)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Secretary,
F-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6.
4. Director of Education,
Got. Of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Rashmi Chopra)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
In this Original Application, the applicant is seeking a direction to respondent No.2, namely, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB for short) to consider her candidature for the post of Teacher (Primary) in OBC category against Post Code No.16/08, to declare her result and to send her dossier to respondent No.1, Govt. of NCT of Delhi or to respondent No.3, namely, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD for short) for her appointment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.10.2007 the applicant applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) against Post Code Nos.164 & 165 of 2007 to DSSSB under the OBC category in response to their advertisement dated 07/07 and 08/07. Along with the application submitted to DSSSB on 29.10.2007, she has attached the provisional certificate dated 23.10.2007 wherein it was stated that her result in the examination was withheld. However, on 29.10.2007 itself, after submitting the application, she received the mark sheet and the certificate of Diploma in Education (Two Years) dated 3.10.2007. Later, she was issued with the admit card in June, 2008 to appear in Part-I and II of the examination conducted by the DSSSB. In September, 2008, the DSSSB declared the result of the examination but her name did not appear in the list of selected candidates and the reason given by them in their reply dated 7.11.2008 to her application under the Right to Information Act was that she was at rank No.2940 in respect of post codes No.164 and 165 and securing 114/2000 marks but on the cut of date she did not have the necessary qualifications. By a subsequent letter dated 7.1.2009, the DSSSB further informed her that she was not selected because the provisional certificate dated 23.10.2007 submitted by her indicated that her result was withheld. She has immediately sent the Annexure A-3 letter dated 27.01.2009 explaining the position as under:-
It is submitted that the last date for the submission of form for this post was 29.10.2007. By that time I had received my provisional certificate by post, the copy of which I had attached with the form. As I reached home on 29.10.07 after submitting my form, I received the copy of my mark sheet also on which the date was 03.10.07. thus, by this it is proved that my result was declared on 03.10.07 only which is 26 days prior to the last date of submitting application form for the post of teacher (primary). My provisional certificate was posted to me on 23.10.07. Because I received my mark sheet on last date for submission of form but after I had already submitted my form, therefore, I could not attach the copy of my mark sheet with the form.
It is my humble request to you that I should be benefited by the fact that my result was declared before 29.10.07 and that I should be put in the category of the selected candidates. I shall be highly obliged.
3. Meanwhile, the DSSSB, as per the requisition of MCD, issued advertisement No.02/08 for the post of Teacher (Primary) under the Post Code 16/08. The educational qualification required for the aforesaid post as stated in the advertisement was as under:
(i) Senior Secondary (10+2) or intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized DSSSB.
(ii) Two years Diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.ED from a recognized institution.
Must have passed Hindi as a subject at the secondary level. The applicant again appeared in the examination held by the DSSSB on 15.2.2009 for the aforesaid post. She got 146 marks out of 200 securing the 26th rank. But the DSSSB did not include her name in the list of selected candidates, on the ground of overage. Vide Annexure A-4 letter dated 6.11.2009, the DSSSB has also informed her the reasons for her non-selection which is as under:
Honble High Court of Delhi while upholding the provisions of RR of the post of Asstt. Teacher in the Directorate of Education and Teacher (Primary) in MCD, to ameliorate the hardship of already enrolled candidates has granted exemption in maximum age for appearing in exam. For the post of Asstt. Teacher/Teacher (Primary) vide order 28.08.2008. The exemption is available to over age candidates who passed their ETE course in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008, once for each respondents. For such candidates who appeared or for whom the Board issued admit cards for appearing in the exam. Under post code 164-165/07 have already availed the chance, as such they were not considered for exemption in maximum age.
4. On her further query dated 17.11.2009 under the RTI Act, the respondent DSSSB informed the applicant on 16.12.2009 as under:
As per order dated 28.08.2008 of Honble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi benefit of relaxation in maximum age limit is admissible only to over aged candidates who had passed ETE course in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 that too once in respect of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and MCD. Applicant had appeared in the examination for the post of Asstt. Teacher/Teacher )P) for the Dte. Of Education/MCD vide roll No.1641854 and she was not found meeting the eligibility conditions for the post as on cutoff date hence not selected. Applicant may also refer to judgment dated 09/12/2009 of Honble High Court as passed in W.P.(C) 13729/09.
5. According to the applicant, her case is covered by High Court of Delhi dated 28.8.2008 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7297/2007 Sachin Gupta vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board by which one opportunity was to be given with a view to ameliorate the hardship of already enrolled students in E.T.E courses who have completed the course either in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
64. To conclude, the language and marks criteria (namely passing of Hindi subject at primary level and minimum 50% marks in senior secondary examination) are upheld in their entirety. Even the age criteria (namely minimum and maximum eligibility age as 20-27 years respectively) is upheld but with a view to ameliorate the hardship of already enrolled students in ETE courses, it is directed that the respondents would permit all those candidates who have completed the ETE course either in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 to appear in the examination conducted by the Respondents for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) once each of the Respondents i.e. MCD and Govt. of NCT of Delhi provided they do not exceed the upper age limit of 32 years for males and 42 years for females and also fulfill all other eligibility conditions. This would also apply to candidates, who have already taken the examination as permitted by this Court. This relaxation will be independent of the relaxation applicable to reserved categories. However, the Relaxation granted by this Court shall cease to operate for the ETE courses after 2008 i.e. commencing from 2009 as from 30th September, 2007 the maximum age limit for ETE course has been reduced from 30 years to 24 years. Except to the above extent, legality and validity of the impugned RR are upheld and accordingly the entire batch of writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
6. The applicant has also submitted that she has been running from pillar to post for getting justice from the respondents but no one was listening to her. She has submitted an application to consider her case for declaration of result and sending of her dossier to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and MCD for appointment, but till date, no reply has been received from them.
7. In the reply affidavit filed in this OA also, the DSSSB has submitted that the applicants claim that on 29.10.2007 when she reached back home after submitting her application for the post in DSSSB, she received the mark sheet and the certificate of Diploma in Education dated 3.10.2007 was considered but it was not reliable as the MP Education Board which had issued provisional certificate dated 23.10.2007 declaring her result as withheld cannot issue the mark sheet/diploma prior to that date. Thus, it is clear that applicant was trying to mislead this Tribunal. They have also submitted that the M.P.Education Board, Bhopal has not even been impleaded as a necessary party in this case. They have also submitted that in compliance of the judgment of the High Court in Sachin Guptas case (supra) they have considered all the over aged candidates for admissibility of benefit of age relaxation as granted by the High Court subject to the condition that such candidates have not availed themselves of the relaxation in earlier selection under post code 164-165/07.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant facts in this case are (i) The applicant had applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) under OBC category against Post Code Nos. 164 and 165 against the advertisement issued by DSSSB vide Nos. 7/07 and 08/07. In the merit list, she was at Sl. No.2940 securing 114/2000 marks but according to the respondents, on the cut of date of receipt of the application, she did not have the certificate of the requisite educational qualification. The applicant explained her position refuting the contention of the respondents. The DSSSB has rejected her explanations stating that the applicant was trying to mislead this Tribunal stating that on 29.10.2007 when she had submitted her application for the post of Teacher (Primary) against Post Code Nos.164 & 165 of 2007 along with the certificate showing that her result was withheld, her claim that on the same day she received the mark sheet and the certificate of Education (two years) dated 3.10.2007 was not reliable as the MP Education Board had already issued the provisional certificate dated 23.10.2007 declaring that her result was withheld (ii) She had in the meanwhile applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD against post code No.016/08. In the merit list, she was at the 26th position securing 146/200 marks. The respondent DSSSB did not select her as she was overaged and exemption granted in terms of the Sachin Guptas case (supra) to those candidates who passed their ETE course in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 could avail only one opportunity and she had already availed the same against post code Nos. 164/07 and 165/07. However, according to the applicant she is entitled for the grant of benefits of the Sachin Guptas case (supra) as she was entitled to be considered separately for the MCD and the grant of NCT of Delhi and she can avail the age relaxation twice.
9. In our considered view, the applicants claim for appointment as Teacher (Primary) against post code No.16/08 based on the Honble High Courts judgment in Sachin Guptas case (supra) is misplaced. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant could avail herself of the age relaxation more than once, separately for appointment under the MCD and Govt. of NCT of Delhi against different post codes advertised on different dates. However, the rejection of the candidature of the applicant against post code Nos. 164 and 165 of 2007 by the DSSSB is not found justified. According to the applicant, along with her applications, she submitted the provisional certificate dated 23.10.2007 wherein it was stated that the result of the applicant was withheld. However, on the very same date of submission of her application, she received the certificate dated 3.10.2007 showing that she passed examination. The DSSSB refused to consider the said certificate dated 3.10.2007 stating that it is not a reliable one as she had already submitted a certificate wherein it has been stated that her certificate was withheld. We do not agree with the reasoning of the DSSSB. It may be by inadvertent mistake on the part of the university/college authorities it was shown that her certificates have been withheld. The DSSSB cannot just reject it on mere assumptions and conjectures. The question is whether the certificate date 3.10.2007 submitted by the applicant was genuine or not. The DSSSB has rejected her candidature without verifying its veracity and authenticity. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the decision of the respondents DSSSB in rejecting the candidature of the applicant for appointment as Teacher (Primary) under the OBC category against post code Nos. 164 and 165 of 2007 on the ground that the certificate dated 3.10.2007 produced by the applicant is not reliable. They are, therefore, directed to verify the veracity and authenticity of the said certificate immediately from the concerned authorities. If the certificate is found genuine and if she is otherwise qualified, she shall be recommended for appointment as Teacher (Primary) to the User Department and she made entitled for all consequential benefits except backwages. The aforesaid directions shall be completed with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. In the result, this OA is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd