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]
No comments:
Post a Comment