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

 

No comments:

Post a Comment