Judgments – Law declared by the Courts: June 2023

Friday, June 16, 2023

Appointment on the post of Domestic Science Teachers (Post Code 92/17) in DOE, Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Failure to upload e-dossier within the stipulated time – DSSSB rejected the candidature – CAT held that the rejection of candidature is illegal and directed the DSSSB to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment

17 May 2023

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

Appointment on the post of Domestic Science Teachers (Post Code 92/17) in DOE, Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Failure to upload e-dossier within the stipulated time – DSSSB rejected the candidature – CAT held that the rejection of candidature is illegal and directed the DSSSB to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment

Central Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, directed the DSSSB as under: -

“15. It is our considered view that the conditions mentioned in the original Advertisement for a particular selection process is the foundation based on which the candidates would take appropriate action in respect of their candidature. The Standards Operating Procedure for filling the forms and the subsequent steps to submission of personal dossiers on being shortlisted or selected should be clearly spelled out in the initial advertisement in unambiguous terms. If there was a requirement of submission of only e-dossiers, the same should have been spelled out up front in the initial advertisement. We do agree with the rational drawn by this Tribunal in OA No.862/2020 in Arvind Kaushik vs DSSSB (Supra) wherein the English law in Carlill vs Cabolic Smoke Ball Company (supra) has been quoted. In the instant case, even, the DSSSB has failed to observe their own stipulation in the Notice dated 21.01.2019, wherein it was mentioned “the shortlisted candidates are also being separately informed through SMS and E-Mail on their registered Mobile and e-mail id”. The respondents have failed to substantiate that they have separately informed all shortlisted candidates and particularly, the present applicant about their being shortlisted. In the age of IT and Mobile Technology revolution, it is not difficult and administratively time –consuming to inform hundreds of shortlisted candidates through their e-mail and SMS to their registered Mobiles regarding them being shortlisted and to undertake further action by the stipulated date. In view of this, the action by Respondent No 2 i.e., DSSSB amounts to arbitrariness and lack of application of mind in following their own stipulated SOP for informing the shortlisted candidates. There will be number of situations when a particular candidate may not be in a position to access the website of the DSSSB continuously to know the uploading of results by DSSSB, unless it is informed well in advance to all candidates that such uploading would take place within a stipulated time line/period. The candidates have missed the bus because there was no time table stipulated in the advertisement for the arrival and departure of the bus. The ratio of the judgement in Jyoti Vs GNCTD (Supra) not applicable to the case at hand as the facts and circumstances of that case is different than those in the present case. There the issue was plain request for allowing late submission of e-dossier despite knowledge of the stipulated time for uploading such e-dossier. Here the issue is no knowledge about such stipulation and no knowledge about being shortlisted. 16. In view of the above, we find sufficient merit in the present OA and hence the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to accept the e-dossier of the present applicant and if she has the legitimate eligibility for the post which she applied for, she should be offered the employment to the advertised post. Respondent no.1 is directed to accept the candidature of the applicant for employment against concerned category against existing vacancies or even creating a supernumerary post. The candidates belonging to the same category already selected by DSSSB (Respondent no.2) and employed by Respondent No.1 will continue to be in service and their rights shall not be affected by this order in any manner.”

[Poonam Vs. DSSSB & Anr., OA No. 1923/2019, Decided on = 17 May 2023]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023061716869804312023%20CAT%20-%20Poonam.pdf

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

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

Uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) cannot be relied upon by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) while selecting a candidate for promotion to the post of Principal in a private unaided recognized school – Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court

30 May 2023

Uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) cannot be relied upon by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) while selecting a candidate for promotion to the post of Principal in a private unaided recognized school – Delhi High Court

On 10.07.1989, Mrs. Vinita Kapoor was appointed as PGT (English) in Kulachi Hansraj Model School. Kulachi Hansraj Model School is a private unaided recognized school in Delhi.

On 01.08.1991, Mrs. Sarita Tyagi was appointed as PGT (Chemistry) in Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School. Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School is also a private unaided recognized school in Delhi.

Kulachi Hansraj Model School, as well as Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School, runs under the aegis of DAV College Managing Committee.

On 12.07.1993, Mrs. Jyotsna Sood was appointed as PGT (English) in Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School.

On 08.07.1994, Mrs. Vinita Kapoor was transferred from Kulachi Hansraj Model School to Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School.

On 11.08.2021, DPC was convened for selecting a candidate for promotion to the post of Principal. However, only Mrs. Vinita Kapoor was interviewed by the DPC and no other candidate was interviewed by the DPC.

On 11.08.2021, Mrs. Vinita Kapoor was promoted to the post of Principal.

Mrs. Sarita Tyagi and Mrs. Jyotsna Sood, being aggrieved, challenged the promotion of Mrs. Vinita Kapoor to the post of Principal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. They submitted that Mrs. Vinita Kapoor was transferred from Kulachi Hansraj Model School to Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School on 08.07.1994 and, therefore, Mrs. Vinita Kapoor is junior to both the petitioners. It was also submitted that 5 years’ service of Mrs. Vinita Kapoor of working as PGT in Kulachi Hansraj Model School was wrongly added on transfer to Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School.

During hearing of the writ petition, Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed Shaheed Raj Pal DAV Public School to produce the original record of the DPC before the Court.

The record of the DPC was produced before the Court and it was discovered that adverse and uncommunicated ACRs of Mrs. Sarita Tyagi and Mrs. Jyotsna Sood were considered by the DPC while selecting Mrs. Vinita Kapoor for promotion to the post of Principal.

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed as under: -

“37. It thus transpires that neither were the Petitioners afforded an opportunity to represent against any tentative seniority list nor against the adverse 'Average' ACRs. despite the law being well settled on both the issues and have consequently suffered the result of losing out on promotion to the post of Principal. Therefore, following the law declared by the Supreme Court, it is imperative to direct the School to permit the Petitioners to represent against the seniority list and communicate all the five ACRs. to the Petitioners which were in reckoning before the DPC.

38. Accordingly, School is directed to circulate the seniority list of PGTs and invite objections. It is left open to the Petitioners to file objections/representations after the tentative seniority list is circulated. If representations are received by the School against the draft seniority list, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and the provisions of Rules, 1973 as well as the Manual relied upon by the Petitioners, subject to its applicability. After taking a decision on the representations, a final seniority list shall be published by the School. The entire exercise shall be completed within 2 months from today.

39. School is further directed to communicate the ACRs. for the period 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 to the Petitioners, within three weeks from today. It is open to the Petitioners to prefer representations against the ACRs. within two weeks of receipt of the ACRs. School shall thereafter take a considered decision in accordance with law on the representations, if any and needless to state, if there is upgradation in the ACR(s) of the Petitioners, a review DPC shall be convened by the School to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal along with the other senior-most PGTs, after finalisation of the seniority list and depending on the zone of consideration. It is made clear that Respondent No. 4 shall continue to function as Principal albeit on re-employment basis in the interest of the administration of the School as well as students and her continuance will be subject to the outcome of the review DPC, if any. In case any of the Petitioners is recommended by the DPC, promotion order shall follow along with all consequential benefits.

40. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid directions.”

[Sarita Tyagi and Ors. Vs. Shaheed Raj Pal Dav Public School and Ors., W.P. (C) 12795/2021, MANU/DE/3862/2023, 2023/DHC /003845, Delhi High Court, Decided On: 30.05.2023]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023061316866387052023%20Del%20Single%20-%20Sarita%20Tyagi%20&%20Anr..pdf

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php