11 December 2024
Delhi High Court (DB)
Failure to upload e-dossier cannot be a ground for rejecting the candidature
of a candidate seeking appointment on the post of TGT (Natural Science) in DOE –
Delhi High Court (DB)
The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 11.12.2024, passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 17117/2024, reads as under: -
“13. It is settled, from the time of Taylor v Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426], followed by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v King-Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253] and a veritable plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court, including State of UP v Singhara Singh AIR [1964 SC 358], that, when the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, that act must be done in that manner or not done at all, and that all other modes of doing the act are impliedly forbidden.
14.
Strict compliance with the conditions of the notice dated 18 February 2019 was,
therefore, imperative.
15.
The notice clearly required the petitioners to inform each candidate, through
SMS and email, of the fact that she, or he, had been shortlisted. There is a
specific finding of fact by the Tribunal, in para 10 of the impugned judgment,
that this requirement was not satisfied in the present case, and that the
petitioners had no evidence to indicate that the respondent had been informed
of the fact that he had been shortlisted either by SMS or email.
16.
There is also a specific averment by the respondent, in the OA filed before the
Tribunal, that he was never informed of the fact that he had been shortlisted
either by email or SMS. We have gone through the entire counter affidavit filed
by the petitioners before the Tribunal. There is not a whisper of an averment,
in the counter affidavit, that the respondent was ever informed of his
short-listing either by SMS or email. The assertion of the respondent to that
effect, remains, therefore, untraversed, before the Tribunal as well as before
this Court.
17.
For the first time, before this Court, in the present writ petition, a faint
plea has been advanced to the effect that the respondent was informed by SMS of
his being shortlisted.
18.
We cannot allow such a plea, which is one of fact, to be advanced for the first
time in this writ petition. We are not sitting in appeal over the decision of
the Tribunal.
19.
Moreover, no copy of any such SMS, whereby the respondent was intimated of the
fact that he had been shortlisted was filed either before the Tribunal or even
before this Court.
20.
We, therefore, do not accept the contention that the respondent was informed of
his having been shortlisted by SMS or email.
21.
The nation is moving towards inclusivity. The stipulation that the candidates
would informed of their being shortlisted by SMS or email was obviously
intended to ensure that candidates who were situated in areas which were remote
or relatively inaccessible would also be made aware of the fact that they were
shortlisted. The requirement of uploading the e-dossier within the time stipulated
in that regard, as contained in the notice dated 18 February 2019, specifically
applies to “shortlisted candidates”. It obviously presupposes that the
candidate was made aware of the fact that she, or he, had been shortlisted. A
candidate who was never informed that he had been shortlisted, by the modes
envisaged in the notice dated 18 February 2019, cannot, therefore, be bound
down by the time stipulations regarding uploading of the e-dossier.
22.
Mr. Dhingra also placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in Pushpender Singh Parnami v DSSSB [(Order dated 25 March 2019 in WP
(C) 2892/2019)]. The same decision was relied upon, by the petitioners,
before the Tribunal. We have perused the said decision. There is no finding by
this Court, in the said decision, that there was a default on the part of the
DSSSB in informing the candidates that he had been shortlisted either by SMS or
by email as envisaged in the notice inviting applications.
23.
The decision in Pushpender Singh Parnami is, therefore, in our view clearly
distinguishable.
24.
The cancellation of the respondent’s candidature on the ground that he had not
uploaded his e-dossier within time was, therefore, clearly illegal. The
Tribunal was, consequently, justified in directing Petitioner 1 to accept the
hard copy of the e-dossier of the respondent and appoint him as TGT if he
qualified for such appointment as per his merit.”
[DSSSB
& Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal Chhedwal, W.P. (C) No. 17117/2024, decided on
11.12.2024, Delhi High Court (DB)]
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
