11 April 2023
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Delhi
Failure
to upload e-dossier – rejection of candidature by DSSSB for appointment on the
post of Craft Instructor Health & Sanitary Inspector – CAT held that
rejection of candidature by DSSSB is illegal and, accordingly, directed DSSSB
to consider the candidature of the applicant
In
2014, DSSSB issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on
the post of Craft Instructor Health & Sanitary Inspector in Govt. of NCT of
Delhi. Advertisement provided that only hardcopies of documents will be
accepted of successful candidates.
In
2019, DSSSB declared that the shortlisted candidates will be required to upload
the e-dossier. The applicant was shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier.
However, the applicant was not aware that he has been shortlisted and
therefore, could not upload his e-dossier within the stipulated time.
Vide Order dated 23.01.2020, the candidature
of the applicant was rejected by the DSSSB on account of failure to upload the
e-dossier.
Being
aggrieved by the rejection order dated 23.01.2020, the applicant filed an
Original Application (OA No. 862/2020) before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Vide
Order dated 11.04.2023, the Hon’ble CAT allowed the Original Application. The
directive paragraphs of the Order dated 11.04.2023 are as under: -
“5.
Heard counsel for the parties. A short question raised by the applicant is
whether he is entitled to get selected or not when he has secured one of the
highest marks which is sufficient for getting selection by taking help of
Clause 4, 5 and 6 reproduced hereinabove. He submits that he was required to
upload the e-dossier only after declaration by the respondents as only
successful candidates were required to submit copy of challan legible
self-attested/Gazetted officer attested/Notarised documents. He did not do so
as his wife was pregnant and he was busy taking care of her. On the contrary,
learned counsel for the respondents prior to this, relied upon an order of this
Tribunal in OA No. 4042/2017 in Manisha vs. Union of India and Ors. where this
Tribunal has dealt with this issue in para 3 which is challenged before the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court who has stayed operation of the judgment. The said
para 3 of the Tribunal’s order reads as under:-
“3.
Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard briefly. It is not in
dispute that the requirement of uploading e-dossiers by the shortlisted
candidates was not initially stipulated in the Advertisement Notice as such.
Such requirement was stipulated by the DSSSB later. We also notice that a large
number of shortlisted candidates have uploaded their e-dossiers in time as they
might have been watchful of the DSSSB‟s website on regular basis. The applicant
had somehow missed out. It is not in dispute that the applicant is in the list
of shortlisted candidates.”
6.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon decision
of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mrs. Jyoti vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
which is reproduced below:
“...........We
do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. There is no prescription either in the public advertisement or in any
guideline that ten days’ time has necessarily to be provided to the candidates
for uploading of their e-dossiers. The DSSSB had re-fixed their schedule by
allowing the candidates to upload their e-dossiers from 04.02.2019 to
13.02.2019 and, therefore, even if it is accepted that the petitioner got
notice of the said extension only on 08.02.2019 (for which there is no proof
placed on record), she had sufficient time even after 08.02.2019 to upload
edossiers. 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
and time i.e., 13.02.2019. 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 a very large scale, cannot be delayed or
withheld on account of the circumstances of a particular candidate. The
petition is dismissed along with pending application.”
He
submits that the present case is covered under these two judgments. We are in
agreement with the learned counsel Mr. Anuj Aggarwal that the advertisement is
Bible of the appointment for the said post wherein nowhere it is stated that he
has to upload his e-dossier. Subsequent amendment in the rule amounts to
changing the rules of the games. Though, they have informed the applicant by
issuing Roll No. of the said exam that he has to upload his e-dossier, the fact
remains that the case of the applicant squarely falls under English judgment in
Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company’s case where law has been laid down
century ago that if an advertisement is acted upon and later on respondents
cannot relegate from their responsibility. The crux of the said judgment reads
as under: -
Carlill
v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law
decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain
terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be
accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of
contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated
with medical quackery, and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley and
Bowen) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as
an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law
student studies in the law of contract.”
7.
In the present case, there is no such responsibility is cast upon the
applicant. The applicant has earned this post by securing highest marks in the
exam.
8.
Thus, in our considered view, the applicant is entitled to be considered for
the said post, if he is otherwise eligible after certifying the documents by
the respondents. We hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of
applicant for the post of Craft Instructor Health and Sanitary Inspector within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. It is needless to say that since the other order/judgment passed by this
Tribunal has been stayed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. This decision will
also be subject to the final judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court.
9.
With this observation, the OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
[Arvind
Kaushik Vs DSSSB & Anr., OA No. 862/2023, decided on 11.04.2023, Central
Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A, First
Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi - 110014
483, Block-2,
Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi-110003
Mobile –
9891403206
Landline – 011 -
35554905
Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment