Manu Sharma vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & another

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

The applicant, who is original applicant in O.A. No.557/2018, through the medium of this M.A., has prayed for direction to the respondent No.1 - Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to send ID number through SMS on contact No.8368054966 in addition to offline application already submitted by her. The applicant intends to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Post Code No.89/17). As she was not getting the benefits of age relaxation in terms of Rule 43 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, she approached the Tribunal in the ibid O.A. During the course of hearing on 31.01.2018 regarding her prayer for interim relief, we passed an interim order; operative part of which reads as under:-

"In the meantime, it is directed that respondent No.1 will entertain the offline application (hard copy) from the applicant and issue admit card and permit her to participate in the examination / selection process provisionally. Her claim for age relaxation shall also be considered by the competent authority. Such participation shall not confer any right or equity in favour of the applicant and will remain subject to any order that may be passed by the Tribunal or the final outcome of this O.A. However, the result of the applicant shall not be declared without the leave of the Tribunal."

Dasti order was issued to the applicant. It is stated that the dasti order from the Dispatch Branch of the Tribunal's Registry was received after 5 PM, and by the time she could approach the Office of DSSSB, the office hours of DSSSB was over and hence the applicant could not submit her application on 31.01.2018, i.e., the last day of submission.

Consequently, the next day, i.e., 01.02.2018, the applicant submitted her application vide her application dated 01.02.2018 (p.4 of M.A.) to the DSSSB together with the Tribunal's order. It is stated that the DSSSB has published a Notice dated 04.04.2018 wherein it is stated that "the applications of only those candidates received on or before 31st  Jan, 2018 have been treated as valid provided the name of the candidate appear in the Memo of parties of the relevant OA, on which the Court has passed the such orders. Rest of the applications have been treated as invalid and accordingly  been  automatically  rejected  without  any  reference  to  the applicant...."

Learned counsel for applicant, during the course of hearing of this M.A., submitted that due to the circumstantial factors, it was just not possible for the applicant to serve the interim order the Tribunal dated 31.01.2018 and submit her offline application to DSSSB on that very day itself, and as such she could submit her application the next day. He thus argued that the benefits of interim order dated 31.01.2018 should be ensured to the applicant and DSSSB be directed to accept her offline application submitted on 01.02.2018.

Per contra, Mr. R N Singh, learned counsel for respondents argued that the applicant was given a copy of interim order dated 31.01.2018 on the same day in the evening for serving the same on the DSSSB by dasti. He further stated that DSSSB had kept its office open up to 11.00 PM for receiving such applications, as they were sounded out about interim orders some hours in advance.

Mr. R N Singh vehemently argued that since the applicant failed to submit the application on 31.01.2018, which was the last date for receiving the applications, and she submitted her application on the next day, i.e., after the last date of receiving the applications, the DSSSB was well within its rights not to entertain such applications. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Union Public Service Commission & another v. S. Krishna Chaitanya [(2011) 14 SCC 227]

We have considered the rival arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records.

Indisputably, the dasti order of the Tribunal dated 31.01.2018, in regard to the interim relief, was issued to the applicant late in the evening. There were a large number of applicants in various O.As., who were also the beneficiaries of the interim order. Most of them submitted their offline applications on the same day with a copy of the dasti order to DSSSB. Therefore, the contention put-forth on behalf of the applicant that by the time she received the dasti order, the office hours of DSSSB was over, as a result she could not submit her offline application, is to be taken with a pinch of salt. It looks that the applicant had failed to verify that the DSSSB was indeed working beyond the office hours on that day.

We have gone through the ibid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Krishna Chaitanya. In that case, the respondent (S. Krishna Chaitanya) was desirous of taking Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2010. He had sent his application for CSE, 2010 by a private courier to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The courier had stated that it had delivered the application to UPSC the very next date but UPSC had said that it had never received it. The Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal, much after the last date of submission of application, had permitted S. Krishna Chaitanya to submit a copy of the application to UPSC and had issued an interim order allowing him to appear in the CSE, 2010 and thereafter confirmed the interim order as absolute. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition of UPSC against the Tribunal's order. Hon'ble Apex Court, however, in a Civil Appeal of UPSC, set aside the Tribunal's order on the ground that the Tribunal did not come to a definite finding that the original application was indeed delivered to UPSC and the candidate did not make any inquiry with UPSC in time as to the receipt of the application.

We are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S Krishna Chaitanya's case (supra) does not apply to the present case on the ground of facts being different. In this case, the Tribunal indeed, vide its interim order dated 31.01.2018, had issued direction to the DSSSB to accept offline application of the applicant, but she could not submit her application on the same day and instead did it the next day, for the reasons mentioned in the M.A.

The contention of the applicant that the office hours of DSSSB was over by the time the dasti order was received by her and thus, she decided to submit the application the next day, i.e., 01.02.2018, cannot be countenanced. If other similarly situated applicants in other O.As. could submit their applications on the same day, i.e., 31.01.2018, then the applicant could have also done so. Her inaction reflects poorly on her seriousness. We may also like to observe that if the relief prayed for in this M.A. is allowed, it would tantamount to extension of the last date of receipt of the applications, which would be patently illegal. Hence the prayer is declined.

In view of the discussions in the pre-paragraph, the M.A. is dismissed.

List O.A. on 06.08.2018, as already ordered.