Ajay Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued notification in the year 2017 for various posts including Special Education Teacher with Post Code No.82/2017. The selection process involved in conducting of written test. The Admit Card is in two parts. The first page is generated on the basis of the application which contains a photograh, the signature and thumb impression of the candidates. The 2nd page is left blank and it is required to be filled at the time of appearing in the examination, and a photograph is required to be pasted at that stage. The applicant took part in the examination but his candidature was rejected through an order dated 16.01.2020 on the ground that he failed to bring the 2nd page of the admit card and used some other candidate's admit card by pasting his own photograph and gained entry into the examination hall. This OA is filed challenging the communication dated 16.01.2020.

The applicant contends that he downloaded his admit card from an internet café, and though the first page was downloaded correctly, the 2nd page which is almost a blank form turned out to be that of an another person and he did not notice the same when it was downloaded. He contends that even the Invigilator did not notice the discrepancy and permitted him to appear in the examination after being satisfied about the identity. The applicant further contends that there was no basis for cancellation of his candidature.

We heard Shri Sudhir Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of admission.

As mentioned earlier, the Admit Card is in two parts. In the first part, the signature, thumb impression and other particulars furnished by the candidate through online, are reproduced. The 2nd part, however, contains only blanks except that the roll number, name of the candidate and post code are mentioned. The photograph is to be pasted and the signature and thumb impression are to be put in he presence of the Invigilator. In the case of the applicant the 2nd page turned out to be that of a totally different candidate altogether.

The very purpose of requiring a candidate to paste the photograph and put the signature in the 2nd page at the time of examination is to ensure that no impersonation takes place. The plea of the applicant that he did not notice the discrepancy in the name of the candidate and roll number on the first page on one hand and signature on the other hand is totally unbelievable. What is more surprising is that the application is said to have got the 2nd page of another candidate.

When the hall ticket in its two pages is a single document, it is just un-understandable as to how the applicant can get the first page of his own admit card and the 2nd page of somebody else. The only entry in the 2nd page is the name and hall ticket. If the applicant did not verify that, it is indeed shocking and surprising. The net result is that the applicant appeared in the examination in the name of a totally different candidate. Therefore, the performance therein cannot be put to his account.

We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.