Dinesh vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Hold and declare that the applicant has been wrongly excluded from consideration for appointment to the post of TGT (Social Science) Male in Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi (post Code 12/13) and;

(b) Direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for the Post Code 12/13 as well as and further process the result of the applicant accordingly and appoint her to the post of TGT (Social Science) in Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi in accordance with his merit position;

(c) award costs of the proceedings and

(d) pass any other order/direction which this Hon‟ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant applied for the post of TGT (Social Science) post code No.118/12, which was advertised along with other posts by DSSSB vide Advertisement No.2/2012 and has also applied in pursuance of another advertisement No.1/13 issued by the DSSSB for various posts including the post of TGT (Social Science) Post Code No.12/13 in Feb. 2013. Both the said posts were to be filled in the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi.

2.1 However, vide notice dated 10.9.2013, the respondents had rejected the application of the applicant against the advertisement no.1/13 for the post code 12/13 on the ground that applicant is not having the requisite qualification and no Hindi Knowledge. The said notice was uploaded by the respondents on their website and the applicant could not come to the knowledge about the same at the relevant time, as nothing was stated in the advertisement that further notices will be uploaded on the website of the respondents.

2.2 Applicant further stated that vide notice dated 1.12.2014, the respondents directed the candidates, who had applied for various post including the post code 118/12 to apply online. The applicant submitted his online application in pursuance of the said direction and vide Roll No.54000280, he had appeared in the examination for the above post code 118/12 conducted by the respondents.

2.3 The applicant further stated that along with roll numbers, a message was also uploaded by the respondents stating that only one admit card for the advertisement no.2/12 has been issued and the candidates will be granted benefits of both post codes (Annexure A-7). As such, according to him, he was under the impression that the above roll number has been issued for both the post codes no.118/12 and 12/13, as the post was the same and the examination was common.

2.4 On 24.11.2015, the respondents had uploaded the marks obtained by the candidates for post code 118/12, 12/13 and separately for the candidates, who appeared against both post codes No.118/12 and 12/13 (Annexures A/9 and A/10). The applicant had got 95.50 marks in the said common examination. However, the applicant was shocked to find out that his name was not included in the result of the list, which was declared for both the post code 118/12 and 12/13.

2.5 The applicant made his representation dated 7.12.2015 (Annexure A/5) to the respondents requesting them to consider his candidature against post code 12/13 also.

2.6 According to the applicant, till date the respondents have neither decided the said representation of the applicant nor have included the name of the applicant in the result/marks statements against both the post code no.118/12 and 12/13.

2.7 On 12.1.2016 and further on 14.1.2016, the respondents have declared the cut off marks for the above post (Annexure A-11 and A-12).

2.8 As per last cut off, the cut off marks for TGT (Social Science) under post code 12/.13 is 95.5 for General Category and the applicant has got the same, hence, the applicant is entitled to be considered for appointment under post code no.12/13.

2.9 In above circumstances, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents on his grievance, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents they have filed their reply in which they stated that as per advertisement No.02/2012 DSSSB invited applications for filling up the vacant posts of various categories of post codes 02/12 to 165/12. Candidates were advised to read the detailed instructions in Sections A, B and C of the advertisement before filling up Part-I and Part-II of the application form. It is further mentioned that vide notice dated 24.10.2014 and subsequent notice dated 25.11.2014, candidates were informed that since the Board has now switched over to OARS, the applicants who had applied for the said post codes through paper based forms, were now required to get themselves registered in OARS software and to upload their photograph, signature and educational qualification/experience online for issuance of admit cards through OARS. Candidates were also advised to ensure that they fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as per advertisement No.02/12 on or before the cut-off date. In respect to the subsequent advertisement, it is further mentioned that notice No.01/2013 was issued by the DSSSB again inviting applications for filling up vacant posts of various categories for post codes 01/13 to 23/13. The candidates were again advised to read the detailed instructions before filling up the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) application form. Instruction number 9 of the advertisement notice further mentioned the deficiencies or irregularities for which the applications were to be treated as invalid and liable to be summarily rejected. Details of such deficiencies are indicated in paras (a) to (p) of the aforesaid instructions. There is a note appended to this notice which inter alia mentions that no claim for re-consideration of the rejected cases on the grounds specified therein would be entertained. It is also stated that the final figures of eligible and rejected candidates for the post codes 04/13 to 19/13 (TGTs) were provided by M/s Datatec Methodex Pvt. Ltd., and against post code 02/13, 1989 candidates were declared as „valid candidates‟ and 1955 candidates as „invalid candidates‟, whereas total candidates against the said post code were 3944. Subsequently, a notice dated 10.09.2013 was uploaded on the website of the Board. In the said notice, it was provided that any candidate who had applied for post codes mentioned therein and whose candidature had been rejected, was granted liberty to file objections about his/her eligibility/ineligibility, with documentary evidence, addressed to the Controller of Exam by post, or deposit in the designated drop box at the DSSSB reception counter latest by 20.09.2013. Based upon objections, an additional list of eligible candidates was declared whereunder 69 more candidates were declared eligible. It is stated that the applicant was not having requisite qualification as on closing date, for which her candidature was rejected.

3.1 They further stated that the list of eligible/ineligible candidates was put on the website of the Board and vide notice dated 10.9.2013, candidates were asked to submit the representation, if any, by 20.9.2013.

Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the averments made in the OA.

The main contention of the counsel for the applicant is that applicant had applied for the same post, i.e., TGT (Social Science) Male and only the post code numbers are different which were advertised in 2012 and 2013 by the DSSSB and admittedly a common exam was conducted for both the advertisements and once the applicant has been declared eligible and was awarded marks 95.5 against the post Code no.118/12 and his name is included in the list of the candidates appeared in pursuance to advertisement of 2012, the stand of the respondents that applicant is ineligible for the said post of TGT (Social Science) Male advertised vide Post Code No.12/13 on the ground that applicant not having the requisite qualification as on closing date is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that in the entire counter affidavit, the respondents have not stated with regard to ineligibility of the applicant for the post code No.118/12 (TGT (Social Science) Male).

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that vide notice dated 10.9.2013, it was informed that the list of eligible/ineligible candidate was put on the web site of the Board and candidates were asked to submit the representation, if any, by 20.9.2013 and as per record, no representation was received from the applicant by the said date.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that it is an admitted fact that applicant had applied for the same post which was advertised by two different advertisements by the DSSSB and was found eligible for the post which was advertised in 2012 and for the same very post advertised in 2013, he was declared ineligible on the ground of not having the requisite qualifications as on closing date. In the entire counter affidavit, the respondents have not disputed the eligibility of the applicant in respect of the same post which was advertised in 2012.

After declaration of result of both post codes, the applicant made representation to the respondents on 7. 12.2015, but the same was neither responded to nor his result qua the post code no.12/13 was declared by the respondents.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that applicant‟s result qua the post code no.12/13 may also be declared and further action in the matter accordingly be taken in accordance with the rules and regulations relating to the appointment to the post of TGT (Social Science) Male.

In the result, the present OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the applicant also qua the post code No.12/13 and take further decision in the matter as per the procedure prescribed for recruitment to the said post. There shall be no order as to costs.