Bhanu Priya vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Through Its Chairman, Government Of NCT Of Delhi, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma (Near Railway Reservation Centre, New Delhi � 110092 & Ors

Anand Mathur, Member (A)

Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-

1.1 An advertisement No.01/14 initiating recruitment for various posts including the post of TGT (Computer Science) (Post Code 192/14) was issued by the respondents. The applicant, being eligible applied for the post of TGT (Computer Science) under OBC category. She appeared for the written examination on 21.05.2017 under Roll No. 13825521 issued by the respondents. Subsequently, a list of names of shortlisted candidates along with their score was uploaded by the respondent on their website wherein the name of the applicant found mention with 75.50 marks with the caption „you have been shortlisted for the Post Code 192/14.‟

1.2 Vide Notice dated 13.07.2017, the applicant was directed to upload requisite documents regarding her eligibility on the e-dossier mode, which was active between 21.07.2017 and 31.07.2017. Accordingly, the applicant uploaded the requisite documents. Thereafter, the respondents issued Result Notice No.190 dated 27.09.2017 wherein the applicant was one of the provisionally selected candidates at serial no.201. The respondents issued Memorandum dated 28.11.22017 to the applicant with the subject ‘Offer of appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science) under Post Code No.192/14’.

1.3 It is stated that despite issuing offer of appointment, the respondents issued Memorandum dated 05.03.2018 to the applicant stating that “on scrutiny of the dossier, it is found that “the candidate may not possess the „A‟ Level Certificate before cut off the date as well as „OBC Certificate‟ along with „proof of residence‟ and directing her to submit self-attested copies/original of the documents or clarification on 14.03.2018 in the office of respondents. On the said date, the applicant appeared before the respondents and submitted the required documents. Despite that, the respondents issued yet another Memorandum dated 12.07.2018 to the applicant asking her again to submit “A” Level Certificate by 25.07.2018, which had already been uploaded on e-dossier mode and submitted in the office of respondents on 14.03.2018. The said certificate/documents were again submitted by the applicant in the office of the respondents.

1.4 It is the case of the applicant that as she completed her graduation with Computer Science as the main subject in the year 2013, she fulfilled the essential qualification before the closing date of application. Not only the essential qualification, the applicant also acquired DOEACC “A” Level Certificate as an additional qualification and when she was asked to upload the same, the applicant uploaded the same as earlier there was no requirement to do so.

1.5 It is stated that the offer of appointment issued to the applicant vide order dated 28.11.2017 was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 20.09.2018 solely on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of TGT Computer Science under Post Code 192/14 before the prescribed cut of date i.e. 27.02.2014, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules inasmuch as “A” level certificate was not one of the essential qualifications.

1.6 Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) To direct the respondents that the candidature of the applicant be processed and considered as she has already qualified on merits in the OBC category and accordingly to direct respondents to issues consequential directions & issue the offer of appointment letter in favour of the applicant.

(ii) That in the above facts and circumstances it is proved that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts and arbitrarily had been passed by ignoring the true and correct facts, hence same may be set aside and quashed.

(iii) To grant costs of this OA to the applicant herein, and also

(iv) That the application of the petitioner is being filed without unnecessary delay if any delay preference of the present petitioner may kindly be condoned.

(v) To pass such order or orders & directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.”

Per contra, respondent nos. 1 & 2/DSSSB have filed a counter affidavit stating that the Board processes the result for the post of TGT (Computer Science) (Post Code 192/14) as per eligibility conditions prescribed in the recruitment rules as well as in advertisement No.01/14. The DSSSB nominates candidates to the User Department with a condition that competent authority of the Department concerned shall issue appointment letter to candidates after satisfying their eligibility as laid down in the recruitment rules and the documents related to educational qualifications, age etc. Thereafter, it is the prerogative of the User Department to finally decide the eligibility of candidates as per the requirement under the rules. In case the User Department feels that any of the candidates nominated by the DSSSB is not eligible for appointment to the post applied for on account of non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria as per the recruitment rules, the DSSSB has nothing to comment in the matter.

2.1 Respondent no.3 has not chosen to file any counter affidavit.

The applicant has also filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 reiterating the averments made in the OA.

We have heard Mr. Saroj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

The sole issue raised by the applicant is the rejection of her candidature on the ground that she was not possessing “A” Level Certificate before the cut off date is not tenable inasmuch as the said qualification was not one of the essential qualifications.

4.1 In order to have a clear picture regarding essential qualification for the post of TGT (Computer Science) Post Code 192/14 and to adjudicate the issue involved in this OA, it is necessary to quote the essential qualification for the aforesaid post as published by the respondents. The same reads as under:-

“Essential Qualification: Essential: 1. Bachelors 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 B.E./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, Government of India.

Note: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the competent authority for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified.”

4.2 Perusal of essential qualifications quoted above makes it clear that before the cut of date, candidates should have possessed the essential qualification i.e. (i) BCA; OR (ii) Graduation in Computer Science provided Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject; OR (iii) Graduation in any subject and ‘A’ level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Government of India.

4.3 We find that since the applicant completed her B.A. Programme with „Computer Applications‟ as one of the subjects, she falls under qualification no.(iii), quoted above, which means that she must have possessed “A” Level Certificate from DOEACC before the cut off date. It is true that she did acquire that qualification but after the cut off date. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents have rightly rejected her candidature for want of essential qualification at the time of applying for the post of TGT (Computer Science) Post Code 192/14.

4.4 In view of the above discussion, we find that the instant OA lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs