Lokesh Jakhar vs Staff Selection Commission Through Its Chairman & Ors

Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant, Mr. Lokesh Jakhar under Section 19 of the CAT Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-

"8 (i) Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to submit all the supporting documents and allow him to participate in the selection recruitment process for the post Junior Technical Assistant (Drilling) for the post code ER13822 under the advertisement no. Phase-X/2022/Selection Posts dated 12.05.2022.

(ii) Pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that pursuant to the advertisement Notice published in the Website of the respondent no. 1 inviting online applications for various posts, the applicant applied under OBC Category for the post of Junior Technical Assistant (Drilling) Post Code R13822 in the Department of Geological Survey of India (Eastern Region), Ministry of Mines. The applicant appeared in the Computer Based Examination. Though he could not find place in the first list of qualified candidates, he found place in the second result list dated 29.05.2023 whereby he was directed to submit copies of all the supporting documents till 19.06.2023. However, somehow he missed the deadline of 19.06.2023 for submitting the hard copies of the online application along with necessary supporting documents and consequently his candidature was rejected for want of documents. In the meantime, the applicant applied for another post bearing code SR 1153 of the same notification and upon his selection he received an e-mail for submission of supporting documents which he did not receive for his earlier post code ER 13822. But, he did not receive any intimation in this regard once he was selected for the Post Code ER 13822. According to the learned counsel of the applicant, the respondents ought to have intimated the qualified candidates about the second result which was published after 6-7 months of the first list. Aggrieved, the applicant sent an email as well as representation to both the respondents. However, no remedial measure was taken by the respondents on it.

Learned counsel of the applicant based his arguments mainly on the ground that the respondents had acted arbitrarily and had rejected the candidature of most of the candidates in notification dated 21.07.2023 solely on the ground of not submitting documents which shows that most of the candidates were not aware of their selection. He also averred that the respondents had not taken cognizance of the representation submitted by him on 31.07.2023 and had moved on with the selection process thereby endangering his position be filled without providing him any chance to participate in the selection process on merit. Furthermore, the applicant belongs to OBC category and has no other source of income thus, it becomes even more imperative to give him a fair chance of selection. Hence, the OA.

To strengthen his case, learned counsel of the applicant relied upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Poonam vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., in OA No. 1923/2019 dated 17.05.2023.

Opposing the OA and denying the averments of the learned counsel of the applicant, the learned counsel of the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA stating that as per the Advertisement Notice, the Commission does not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for the eligibility and other aspects at the time of Computer Based Examination (CBE) and, therefore, candidature is accepted only provisionally. The candidates were advised and expected to go through the requirements of educational qualification, experience, age, physical and medical standards etc., so as to meet with the requirements of the post and satisfy themselves about their eligibility for the said post. It is only at the stage of scrutiny that the copies of self-attested supporting documents along with print out of the online application form are sought. Upon scrutiny of documents if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature is cancelled. He further pointed out that the Result Write Up dated 29.05.2023 published on the Website of the Commission clearly speaks about the requirement to submit a copy of all the supporting documents till 19.06.2023. For more clarity, the relevant portion of the Result Write Up dated 29.05.2023 reads as under :-

"The additional candidates who are shortlisted for next stage of scrutiny are required to submit a copy of all the supporting Documents (Self Attested) in respect of Educational Qualification (EQ), Experience, Category, Age, Age relaxation, etc. (as applicable) in hard copy along with the print out of their online application form to the respective Regional Office(s) to which the Post Category belongs, within 3 (three) weeks i.e. up to 19.06.2023 by SPEED POST ONLY. The candidates should clearly mention the "Higher Secondary (10+2) Level" and "Post-Category No." on the TOP of the Envelope while sending the documents to the respective Regional Office(s) by Speed Post

Para 1.1 of the said Notice of the examination also reads as follows :-

"All information relating to this recruitment right from the status of application upto the nomination of the selected candidates to the User Department including call letters for the Computer Based Examination to the provisionally eligible candidates will be available on the website of Staff Selection Commission i.e. https://ssc.nic.in and the websites of the Regional Offices of the Commission the websites of the Regional Offices of the Commission."

Apart from that, all the candidates were abundantly informed through Para 1.2, 15.3, 15.4, 16.2, 18.12 of the Notice to regularly check the websites of the Commission and its Regional Offices to which their post categories belong to. Therefore, if a candidate misses his/her opportunity to appear for any stage of an examination conducted by the Commission due to failure on his/her part to regularly check the websites of the Commission, it places no compulsion on the Commission to reconsider the candidate's claim. Furthermore, any consideration would open the flood gates for the candidates who failed to appear for any stage of an examination on account of their own fault. Thus, considering all such claims would bring the Commission, which is already operating in mission mode, to a grinding halt. Learned counsel of the respondents further added that after scrutinizing the hard copies of documents received from the additionally shortlisted candidates, the preliminary scrutiny status of such candidates were uploaded on the Commission’s website vide Notice No. S-S.13011/15/2023-Recruitment dated 21.07.2023 whereby representations were sought from the ineligible candidates by 31.07.2023. Para 5 of that Notice is reproduced below :-

"Please note that candidates who have provisionally qualified in the CBM Examination but have failed to submit hard copies of their applications along with copies of certificates in support of their Age, EQ etc. within the stipulated date (19.06.2023) and such other candidates who have not qualified in CBM Examination but have submitted hard copies and requisite certificates, have not been considered for the captioned recruitment. Further, the experience certificates of those candidates, who did not fill the relevant column regarding work experience in their online Application Form, have not been considered in terms of para 9.5 of the Notification of the Examination."

Taking strength from ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 8343-8344 of 2011 dated 28.09.2011, learned counsel of the respondents pressed paras 28 and 29 of the aforesaid judgment which are reproduced below :-

“28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

Heard learned counsel of both the sides; examined the documents on record and perused the judgments cited by both the sides. This Tribunal has carefully gone through the terms and conditions of the relevant advertisement of the staff selection commission, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India File No. 15/1/2022-RHQ – Advertisement No. Phase X/2022/Selection Posts uploaded on the website of Staff Selection Commission on 12.05.2022. Paras 1. 1 and 1.2 of this Advertisement state as follows :-

“1.1. All information relating to this recruitment right from the status of application upto the nomination of the selected candidates to the User Department including call letters for the Computer Based Examination to the provisionally eligible candidates will be available on the website of Staff Selection Commission i.e. https://ssc.nic.in and the websites of the Regional Offices of the Commission.

1.2. Candidates are advised to visit the websites of the Regional Offices for the latest information respect of various categories of posts pertaining to the Region Concerned and the various stages of recruitment process.”

In documents verification, the above advertisement states as follows :-

“16. DOCUMENTS VERIFICATION:

1 All the candidates qualified for Document Verification are required to appear for Document Verification in the Regional Office to which the Post-category belongs, along with the photocopies and original documents as mentioned at Para No. 16.4.

16.2. Admission Certificate for DV will be issued by the concerned Regional Office to which post category belongs. Therefore, candidates are advised to check the website(s) of the concerned Regional Office regularly.”

As can be seen from the above, the respondents – SSC had clearly put the onus of checking of important cut off date on the applicants and nowhere was it stated that the applicant would be intimated through e-mail, or SMS. Given the above and the sanctity of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, the balance of convenience in this case clearly lies with the respondents. This is further buttressed by the decision of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Jyoti vs. GNCTD & Anr. dated 22.04.2019 which stated as under :-

“The Tribunal has found and we agree with the said findings, that if the petitioner is permitted to upload her e dossier after the closing of the scheduled period, the same would amount to discrimination against others, who may have similarly not been able to upload their e dossiers by the notified date... Merely because the petitioner claims that she was pregnant or Out of town is no ground for extension of time as the selection process which is undertaken on very large scale, cannot be delayed or withheld on account of the circumstances of a particular candidate.

The counsel for the respondents averred that the ratio of the aforementioned two judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court fairly applicable to the instant case. The uploading of e-dossiers as communicated by the DSSSB through its website was sufficient for information of the candidates to undertake further course of action. The late submission of e-dossiers or acceptance of physical dossiers after the scheduled date would create a situation where other similarly placed candidates will not get that opportunity and hence, it would be violation of principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India. In the alternative, allowing all such candidates to take corrective action in respect of their individual candidature would open pandora box and would upset the entire process of selection rendering it an never-ending exercise.”

The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal SLP (C) No.8343-8344 of 2011 – Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Others which states that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure and that there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour shown to any candidate. All appointments to public office should be made in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Any undue favour shown to the petitioner in terms of giving him latitude and leeway of uploading /submitting his documents after the stipulated cut off date would be in violation of the judgments quoted above.

Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.