Amit Kumar vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

Heard.

In the instant OA, the applicant sought the following reliefs:-

"a. To quash and set aside para No.15 of the result notice   bearing   No.686   dated   10.07.2018 (Annexure  A1)  issued  under  the  signature  of Deputy Secretary, CC-II, of the respondent No. 2 DSSSB whereby the candidature of the applicant Roll No.17200553 is rejected.

b. To direct the respondent No. 2 to activate his e-dossier link to enable him to upload his requisite and applicable documents for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Foreman under Post Code No.18/15 in OBC Category.

c. To direct the respondent No. 2 to send the particulars/dossier of the applicant to the respondent No. 3 the user department with the directions to respondent No.3 to ensure the correctness of the documents relating to his educational qualification/experience etc. and finally decide his eligibility as per the RRs of the post on closing date i.e. 26.11.2015 as is directed by respondent No.2 in the cases of all other candidates selected provisionally for appointment to the post of Assistant Foreman as per the aforesaid result Notice No.686 dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure-A1).

d. to direct the respondent No. 3 to appoint the applicant to the post of Assistant Foreman if he is found eligible for appointment as per his documents.

e. Any other or further relief which this Hon"ble Tribunal deems fit, just and proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case in interest of justice may also please be awarded.

f. Award the cost of the present proceedings."

Brief facts of the case are that in response to advertisement No.01/2015, the applicant applied for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Foreman in Delhi Transport Corporation under Post Code No.18/15 in OBC category. The respondent no.2 conducted an examination for the same on 15.10.2017. The applicant appeared in the said exam and secured 91.25 marks. The cut off marks for appointment in OBC category were 70 only. The respondents vide impugned result notice dated 10.7.2018 appointed 24 candidates but the candidature of the applicant was rejected only on the ground that he failed to furnish his documents in e-dossier link within the time frame allowed. The time allowed for this purpose was w.e.f. 20.3.2018 to 16.4.2018.

The applicant vide applications dated 15.5.2018 and 11.6.2018 requested the respondents to allow him to place on record his documents because he could not upload the same within the aforesaid period as he could not see the notices uploaded on internet because of poor availability or non-availability of the internet facility in his village Nangal Thakran where he resides. The site of the respondent no.2 also remained down frequently. The applicant because of his suffering from jaundice w.e.f. 15.3.2018 to 15.5.2019 could not go to city to check the aforesaid notices. Other members of the family remained busy in the marriage of his younger sister. The father of the applicant is permanently disabled since 2006.

According  to  the  applicant,  the  respondents  illegally  and arbitrarily rejected the candidature of the applicant without affording him a last and final opportunity for submitting his documents as per prevailing practice.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

We  have  perused  the  impugned  Order  dated  10.7.2018 (Annexure A-1), according to the applicant himself, in which qua the applicant they have stated that the applicant has failed to furnish e-dossier. The applicant has himself admitted that he has failed to upload his e-dossier to the link provided by the respondents in this regard on the concerned website. For this purpose, time was granted w.e.f. 20.3.2018 to 16.04.2018. The grounds taken by the applicant to support his grievance are not sustainable in the eyes of law as sufficient time was granted by the respondents for this purpose. This requirement is mandatory for all the candidates. Only the applicant is shown to have failed to submit his e-dossier. There is no other candidate mentioned in the said impugned order who has failed to submit his/her e-dossier. When there is a requirement for submission of e-dossier for all the candidates then it is incumbent upon all the candidates to follow the same.

The similar issue of non-uploadtion of certain information on website before the cut off date was raised before this Tribunal in OA No.2635/2018 (Smt. Anu Kumari vs. Union of India and another) in which this Tribunal, vide Order dated 31.7.2018, held that "..... It discloses that between 16.01.2018 and 29.01.2018, the applicant made attempts to access the website 8 times, and it was available on 5 occasions. However, she did not chose to communicate the same, which needed nothing more than pressing a button on the keyboard."

In view of the above discussions, for the foregoing reasons and having regard to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Anu Kumari (supra), we do not find any merit in the instant OA. All the candidates were given an equal opportunity to upload the correct details with regard to their online applications. The applicant cannot be given further opportunity to upload the application beyond the period of time fixed for the same as this will violate principle of equality before law given to all the candidates. It is pertinent to mention that now a day"s aspirants of advertised posts are required to fill their applications online and it is incumbent upon all the aspirants to strictly follow the instructions with regard to their candidature. The same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.