“What percent is 7 paise of Rs. 75?”

According to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the correct answer is 28/3 (i.e. 9.33%). Whether correct answer is 28/3 (i.e. 9.33%) or 7/75 (i.e. 0.0933 %), will be decided by an Expert Committee – Appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Male) Post Code = 144/17. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [Sandeep Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board; O.A. No. 1294/2019; decided on 25.04.2019]

25^th April, 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench New Delhi, directed the DSSSB to refer the question to an expert committee which shall examine the aforesaid question and submit its report to the DSSSB.

Sandeep Kumar appeared in a written examination conducted by the DSSSB for appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Male) Post Code = 144/17. He scored 105 Marks but could not get selection because of 1 question i.e. Question No. 56 = What percent is 7 paise of Rs. 75? The Question was having 4 options i.e. (A) 28/3, (B) 3/28, (C) 7/75 and (D) “None of these”. Sandeep answered option ‘C’, whereas according to DSSSB, the correct answer is option ‘A’. 0.25 were deducted from the total marks of Sandeep on account of giving wrong answer. Being aggrieved, Sandeep approached the CAT by filing an Original Application [O.A. No. 1294/2019].

Anuj Aggarwal, Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha and Saurabh Ahuja, Advocates, appearing for the applicant (Sandeep Kumar), submitted that the correct answer of the aforesaid question was option ‘C’ i.e. 7/75. It was also submitted that because of the arbitrary action of the DSSSB, the applicant was illegally denied appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed Member (A), hearing the Original Application, on 25.04.2019, directed the DSSSB to refer the question to an expert committee which shall examine the said question and submit its report to the DSSSB in a time bound manner.

10 April 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17) – CAT issued notice to the DSSSB, NDMC, EDMC, SDMC as well as the Rehabilitation Council of India on account of their failure to fill all the vacancies of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17), which were advertised vide Advertisement dated 07.08.2017 [Reshma Parveen & Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. [O.A. No. 1038/2019, Date of order = 10.04.2019]

Eighteen (18) qualified Special Educators filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, thereby seeking appointment on the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17). The applicants had appeared in the written examination, as conducted by the DSSSB, but couldn’t qualify the same because of wrong examination procedure and defective question paper.

Anuj Aggarwal and Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates, counsels for the applicants, submitted that in the last 7 years, the DSSSB has failed to fill even 35% of the aforesaid posts. DSSSB has till date filled only 547 posts out of 1,790 posts of Special Educator (Primary). Because of non-appointment of Special Educators, children with special needs (disabled children) have failed to enjoy their fundamental right of free & compulsory education as enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

It was also submitted by the counsels for the applicants that the DSSSB received the requisition from the MCD on the basis of 6 independent disabilities i.e. MCD demanded candidates from 6 independent disabilities but the DSSSB acted contrary to the requisition by not specifying the same in the advertisement.

It was also submitted that in the written examination the question paper, which the candidates were required to answer, contained questions which were out of syllabus. Part-B of the said question paper consisted of questions from all the 6 different branches/specialization of disabilities. The aforesaid question paper clearly shows that a candidate who studied one branch of disability was required to answer questions which were never part of his study/course and, consequently, it was out of syllabus and beyond the scope of his study. It was, therefore, submitted that asking questions pertaining to hearing or mental retardation disability from a candidate who is specialized in teaching blind/low vision students, is not only illogical & illegal but also amounts to asking questions which are out of syllabus. The aforesaid mechanism of setting question paper clearly reflects the incompetency of the DSSSB.

Counsels for the applicants also submitted that the DSSSB arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the rules of game inasmuch as initially a candidate was required to pass Part-A as well as Part-B independently and acquire 40% marks in each section/part. However, subsequently, the DSSSB short listed the candidates by asking the sum total of the marks obtained by the candidate in Part-A as well as Part-B and, consequently, dispensed with the requirement of independently passing/qualifying each part/section.

The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to issue notice in the Original Application. The next date of hearing is 11.07.2019. [Reshma Parveen & Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. [O.A. No. 1038/2019, Date of order = 10.04.2019]