Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi
09
July 2024
Delay
in submitting e-dossier – Cannot be a ground for rejecting the candidature for
appointment on the post of TGT (Sanskrit) since there is no such requirement in
the advertisement - Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
The
directive paragraphs of the Order dated 09.07.2024 reads as under: -
“10. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records, we find that the aforesaid
issue, in similar circumstances has already been decided by this Tribunal in
the matter of Poonam(supra) dated 17.05.2023. For ready reference, the contentions
of the respective parties as dealt with in detail in Para 15 of the said Order
read 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 edossier 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.”
11. In view of the
above, we cannot take a divergent view to that of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Tribunal. In view of the above, the present OA is allowed. The respondents are
directed to accept the e-dossier of the present applicant and if he has the legitimate
eligibility for the post which he applied for, he 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.1) and
employed by Respondent No.2 will continue to be in service and their rights
shall not be affected by this order in any manner.”
[Rituraj
Khandal vs. DSSSB & Anr., OA No.1039/2019, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, decided on 09.07.2024]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2024071417209452642024%20CAT%20-%20Rituraj%20Khandal.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
