Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. After passage of over one year, vide communication dated 05.04.2008, the petitioner was informed that she was inadvertently called for written examination, although she was not eligible as (i) the last date for receipt of the application was 13.11.2006 whereas the applicant submitted her application on 20.12.2006 and (ii) the application form submitted by the applicant was incomplete and in a different format, which aspects were detected during the screening by the Committee Members.

4. The petitioner represented to the respondents. However, when no action was taken she approached the Chief Commissioner of Person with Disabilities (CCPD) with a prayer to direct the respondents to provide appointment to her. The respondents appeared before the CCPD and took the same plea as indicated regarding deficiencies being found during screening. The CCPD passed an order dated 08.07.2016 directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner.

5. Pursuant to the order passed by the CCPD dated 08/14.07.2016, the respondents passed the order dated 12.8.2016, coming to the conclusion that there was no merit in the case for further consideration for appointment of the petitioner on Group-D post under PH quota. Aggrieved of the order dated 12.8.2016, the present Original Application was filed.

6. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents inter-alia indicating that against seven vacancies, 958 candidates appeared for written test in which 31 candidates passed in the required written test for Group-D and the result was published on 23.02.2007. The petitioner was wrongly called for the written examination as she was not eligible and therefore, the Screening Committee rightly rejected her candidature.

7. The petitioner filed rejoinder inter-alia disputing having filed the application on 20.12.2006 and the reasons given by the respondents for rejection of her candidature. She disputed that the date indicated in the application form was in her handwriting and required the respondents to comply with the directions of the CCPD.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that even if it is presumed that the date in the application form was not filled in her own handwriting but as the application form was not found in the format of notification, many required informations were missing i.e. the type of disability, percentage of disability etc. and consequently, dismissed the Original Application.

14. The petitioner since her first representation made to various authorities including the CCPD, clearly denied having made the application on 20.12.2006 i.e. after the last date and had indicated that the nature and percentage of her disability are reflected from the certificate enclosed with the application and rejection of her candidature was not just. The CCPD vide its order dated 8/14.07.2016 (Annexure - 13), required the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Group-D post. However, the respondents did not follow the said directives, which led to filing of the Original Application.