Appointment on the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD - OBC (Central) Certificate is valid for claiming OBC reservation in Delhi

25.08.2023

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

In terms of DSSSB’s Advertisement dated 04.03.2021, Ms. Tanisha Ansari applied for appointment on the post of Special Educator (Primary) (Post Code: 32/21) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under OBC category.

Ms. Ansari had OBC (Central) Certificate dated 31.03.2021, on the basis of which she applied under the OBC category. It may be noted that vide Notification dated 20.01.1995, “Ansari” has been recognized as an Other Backward Class (OBC) by the Delhi Government for jobs in Delhi. Further, vide Notification dated 12.08.2011, “Ansari” has been recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC) by the Central Government for jobs in Central Government.

On 05.01.2022, DSSSB declared the marks of all the candidates who had appeared in the Computer Based Test (CBT). Marks of Ms. Ansari were also declared and she was shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier. Accordingly, Ms. Ansari uploaded her e-dossier at the DSSSB’s website. However, vide Notice dated 27.04.2022, DSSSB directed Ms. Ansari to upload an OBC (Delhi) Certificate for claiming OBC reservation.

On 29.04.2022, Ms. Ansari applied for issuance of OBC (Delhi) Certificate. On 02.05.2022, Delhi Government issued OBC (Delhi) Certificate dated 02.05.2022 to Ms. Ansari. On 07.05.2022, Ms. Ansari duly uploaded the OBC (Delhi) Certificate dated 02.05.2022 at the DSSSB’s website. However, vide Order dated 01.07.2022, DSSSB rejected the candidature of Ms. Tanisha Ansari under the OBC category.

Being aggrieved by the rejection Order dated 01.07.2022, Ms. Ansari filed an Original Application (OA No. 2112/2022) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi. Vide Order dated 25.08.2023, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the DSSSB, as well as MCD, to treat Ms. Ansari as an OBC candidate and, accordingly, appoint her on the post of Special Educator (Primary) (Post Code: 32/21) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under OBC category. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 25.08.2023 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been treated as Unreserved Category despite the fact that he has holding a valid OBC Certificate. He is a resident of Delhi belonging to Ansari community which is in the notified list and in the Central Government which as per him is duly recognized by the Government of NCT vide a circular dated 27.07.2007. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced as under: -

 

“Sub: Reservation for OBCs in the jobs under the Government of NCT of Delhi.

 

Madam/Sir,

I am directed to inform that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor has considered the matter regarding grant of benefit of reservation to OBCs in Civil posts under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and has decided that the Central list for OBCs qua Delhi and castes defined as GBCs by OBC Commission and accepted so by the Government be extended the benefit of reservation in Delhi.

 

In light of the above, appropriate action for grant of benefits of reservation to OBCs in the civil posts of Govt. of NCT of Delhi may be taken accordingly”

 

 

3. He further reiterates that similar stand was reiterated vide recent circular dated 08.11.2021, which also reads as under: -

 

“Sub: Reservation for OBCs in the Jobs under the Government of NCT of Delhi reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to Service Department letter No.F.19(10)2001/8-III/ Pt. file /2278-2285 dated 27/07/2007 by which it has been conveyed with the approval of Hon'ble Lt. Governor that benefit of reservation to OBCs in Civil Posts under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi be extended to the Castes mentioned in Central list for OBCs qua Delhi, and caste defined as OBCs by OBC Commission and accepted so by the Govt.

 

2. Therefore, the castes mentioned in the Central OBCs list have been accepted by the Government of Delhi for extending benefits of reservation in Civil posts under the Government of NCT of Delhi in addition to castes notified by the Government of Delhi vide above mentioned letter dated 27-07-2007.

 

3. Accordingly, Revenue Department, GNCTD is hereby requested to upload the complete list of castes (Notified by Government of NCT of Delhi and caste notified under Central Govt. for the State of Delhi under Central list- (copy enclosed)

 

This is issues with approval of competent authority.”

 

 

4. He places an Entry No. 26 in the said list. He further states that the applicant secured 101.78 marks in OBC Category whereas the cut-off of the marks of the last selected candidate in the OBC category were 84.44 marks. He has also drawn attention to a Caste Certificate issued on 31.03.2021.

 

…….

…….

 

 

9. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the (Annexure A-9) was in proper format as per the Advertisement’s terms and conditions only issued to be examined whether it has been uploaded in accordance with the cut-off date or not. To our mind the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents though relevant to the context that the facts of the case were entirely different. Set of circumstances here we find that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v/s Anjana (supra), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well.

 

………….

………….

 

10. We also draw strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) 9040/2019 titled Praveen Khatri and Ors. v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., decided on 27.10.2021 as held as under:-

 

……………

……………

 

11. In view of the present OA, the impugned rejection and treating the applicant as Unreserved qua the applicant is liable to be set aside. We allow the present OA directing the respondents that the applicant shall be treated as OBC candidate and shall be issued appointment letter within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We further direct that once the offer of appointment has issued, the applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority only subject to the last selected candidate in her category. The actual salary shall be granted to the applicant from the date of actual joining.”

 

[Tanisha Ansari Vs. DSSSB & Anr., OA No. 2112/2022, decided on 25.08.2023, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi]

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023091716949567582023%20CAT%20-%20Tanisha%20Ansari.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

Termination of service of teachers working in a private unaided school without obtaining prior approval from the Director of Education is bad in law – Delhi High Court

18.08.2023

Delhi High Court

In the year 2014, Dapinder Kaur and Komal Panwar were appointed as Primary Teachers by DAV Public School, Masjid Moth, Delhi. DAV Public School is a private recognized unaided school in Delhi and runs under the aegis of DAV College Trust and Managing Society. DAV Public School is recognized by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

In the year 2016, both the teachers were confirmed by the school. In the year 2018, the service of both the teachers were illegally terminated.

Being aggrieved by the illegal termination of service, the teachers filed Appeals [Appeal No. 33/2018 and Appeal No. 43/2018] before the Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi. The Delhi School Tribunal vide Order dated 28.02.2019, allowed the Appeals and directed the DAV Public School to reinstate the teachers.

DAV Public School, instead of implementing the Order dated 28.02.2019, as passed by the Delhi School Tribunal, challenged the same by filing the writ petitions [W.P. (C) No. 3352/2019 and W.P. (C) No. 3362/2019] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Vide Order dated 18.08.2023, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions, as filed by the DAV Public School, and upheld the Order dated 28.02.2019, passed by the Delhi School Tribunal. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 28.02.2019 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“24. The language of the above said provision clearly lays down that a private school, whether aided or unaided is required to formulate a disciplinary committee. The said provision is also supplemented by the Rule 120 of the DSEAR, which mandates that a major penalty cannot be imposed upon an employee by the school prior to an inquiry conducted by the disciplinary committee in a manner specified under the said Rule. The aforementioned Rule is reproduced hereunder:

“120. Procedure for imposing major penalty-

…..

…..

28. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Others, (2016) 6 SCC 541, has held that the termination of an employee, will be bad in law if it is obtained without prior approval of the Director of Education. Section 8 (2) of DSE, is a procedural safeguard enacted by the legislature with a clear intent to provide security of tenure to employees and to regulate the terms and conditions of their employment. It further ensures that an employee is not terminated in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without the approval of the Director, even by a private school. The relevant paragraphs of the aforementioned judgement are reiterated herein:

……….

………

29. In the instant case, this Court has taken into consideration the facts and documents placed on record and observes that the service of respondent teacher is clearly recorded as that of a permanent employee by the petitioner school. Furthermore, the observation laid down by the learned Tribunal are also been considered, wherein, the learned Tribunal placed reliance on the counter affidavit of the petitioner school in the Appeal bearing no. 44/2018, which stated that the petitioner school accepted the respondent teacher as a permanent employee w.e.f. 9th August 2015. Thus, proving that the respondent teacher was terminated in contravention of the provisions of Rule 118 and 120 of the DSEAR. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent teacher was a permanent employee of the petitioner School.

 

30. Now, delving into a peculiar question raised in this petition, in regard to the entitlement of back wages. This Court is of the view that based on the observations mentioned herein above, the respondent teacher is entitled to back wages as directed vide the impugned order dated 28th February 2019, passed by the learned Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Sunil Sikri vs Guru Harkrishan Public School & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 926, held that when an appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal is filed under Section 11 of the DSE, and the employee is reinstated, then the provision is not merely an enabling one since it confers upon the Managing Committee of the school, a power that becomes a duty to consider and any other view would put the employee at the mercy of the employer, which is not the intent of the DSE.

31. Therefore, in light of the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that the respondent teacher is entitled to reinstatement as held by the learned Tribunal. This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and hence, upholds the impugned order 28th February 2019, passed by the learned Tribunal in Appeal bearing No. 44/2018.

32. In view of the above discussion of facts and law, this Court discerns no material in the propositions put-forth by the petitioner school and thereby, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

33. Accordingly, pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.”

 

[DAV Public School & Anr. Vs. Dapinder Kaur & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 3352/2019, decided on – 18.08.2023; DAV Public School & Anr. Vs. Komal Panwar, W.P. (C) No. 3362/2019, decided on – 18.08.2023]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023090116935696072023%20Del%20Single%20-%20DAPINDER%20KAUR.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023090116935696402023%20Del%20Single%20-%20KOMAL%20PANWAR.pdf

 

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

Cost of Rs. 20,000 imposed upon a private school on account of passing an illegal suspension order

Delhi High Court

10 April 2023

 

Cost of Rs. 20,000 imposed upon a private school on account of passing an illegal suspension order

 

Vide Order dated 27.05.2019, Mrs. Umesh Guaba was illegally suspended from service by Modern Child Public Sr. Sec. School. Being aggrieved by the suspension Order dated 27.05.2019, Mrs. Umesh Guaba challenged the same before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide Order dated 10.04.2023, allowed the writ petition. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 10.04.2023 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“2. Indisputably, the impugned suspension order was passed on 27.05.2019 and on the same date, an order was also passed terminating the services of the Petitioner. Parties are ad idem that Petitioner challenged the termination order before the Delhi School Tribunal and the same has been set aside. In the meantime, Petitioner has retired on superannuation on 31.05.2021.

 

3. Considering the fact that the termination order was passed on the same date as the suspension order, question of grant of any allowances for the suspension period does not arise. However, since the suspension order was passed without the approval of the Directorate of Education, as mandated under Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, no doubt, the same is illegal and deserves to be quashed, as a matter of record. In this view, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition.

 

4. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner, however, prays that some costs may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner as he has been unnecessarily compelled to file the writ petition on account of an illegal suspension order. The Court finds merit in this contention. Judgments have been repeatedly passed by this Court that a suspension order requires prior approval of the Directorate of Education under Section 8(4) of the aforementioned Act and in fact, the provision itself is explicitly clear on this mandate. Despite this, the impugned suspension order was passed by the School, compelling the Petitioner to approach this Court.

 

5. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of to the extent of quashing the impugned suspension order dated 27.05.2019 with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the School/Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner, within six weeks from today. Pending application also stands disposed of.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023072916906429552023%20Del%20Single%20-%20UMESH%20GAUBA.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

[Umesh Gauba Vs. Modern Child Public Sr. Sec. School (Recognized) and Ors., W.P. (C) 7820/2019, Decided On: 10.04.2023, 2023/DHC /002892, Delhi High Court]

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Appointment on the post of Principal in DOE, GNCTD – UPSC stipulated 13.05.2021 as cut-off date for determining the eligibility – CAT held that the candidates, who completed 10 years teaching experience after the stipulated cut-off date, are entitled to be considered for appointment

15 May 2023

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

Appointment on the post of Principal in DOE, GNCTD – UPSC stipulated 13.05.2021 as cut-off date for determining the eligibility – CAT held that the candidates, who completed 10 years teaching experience after the stipulated cut-off date, are entitled to be considered for appointment

 

On 24.04.2021, UPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on 363 posts of Principal in DOE, GNCTD. UPSC stipulated 13.05.2021 as closing/last date for accepting the application forms. It was also declared that 13.05.2021 shall be the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the applicants.

 

On 25.04.2021, UPSC deferred the recruitment process in view of Covid-19 pandemic.

 

On 10.07.2021, UPSC re-published the advertisement. UPSC stipulated that 29.07.2021 shall be the closing/last date for accepting the application forms. UPSC, however, stipulated that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the applicants/candidates shall be 13.05.2021.

 

One of the requisite eligibility conditions for appointment on the post of Principal was that the applicant must have 10 years teaching experience.

 

Several TGTs and PGTs of DOE, GNCTD completed the requisite 10 years teaching experience during the period between 13.05.2021 to 29.07.2021. They requested UPSC that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the applicants/candidates must be 29.07.2021 (i.e., the closing date for accepting the application forms) instead of 13.05.2021 (which was the closing date for accepting the application form in the previous advertisement).

 

UPSC did not accede to the request of the aforesaid applications. Consequently, the aggrieved candidates filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.

 

Vide Order dated 15.05.2023, the Original Applications of the aforesaid candidates were allowed and UPSC was directed to consider the candidature and declare the result of the applicants/candidates who completed the requisite 10 years teaching experience on/before 29.07.2021. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 15.05.2023 is reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“21. After going through the advertisement in question, we are of the opinion that the same is self-contradictory. As stated above, in clause 9 (b), the respondent No.1 – UPSC made it clear that the date of determining eligibility of all candidates in every respect shall be the closing date for submitting the ORA on the website. So, in terms of the advertisement re-issued on 10.07.2021, the closing date for receiving the applications was 29.07.2021, thus the eligibility of the candidate with reference to the experience also ought to be 29.07.2021 in terms of clause 9 (a) referred to above. However, the respondent No.1 in re-issued advertisement dated 10.07.2021 submitted that though the closing date for making online applications would be 29.07.2021, but the eligibility and other conditions as mentioned in the earlier advertisement dated 24.04.2021 remain unchanged, thereby making it clear that the date of receipt of applications though extended, the eligibility criteria in respect of the experience was maintained as per the earlier advertisement. It is important to note that despite the extension of closing date, the respondent No.1 maintained the earlier position of the advertisement in the re-published advertisement.

 

22. In our view, the above facts make it clear that the advertisement issued by the respondent No.1 is self-contradictory so far as the closing date of eligibility criteria is concerned.

 

23. From the perusal of clause 9 (b) of the ‘instructions and additional information to candidates for recruitment by selection’ appended with the advertisement in question, it appears to be the policy of respondent No.1 that the eligibility criteria regarding age, qualification and experience would be the closing date for submitting the ORA on the website. We find logic in this stipulation and naturally if the date of online submission of applications is extended by republishing the advertisement and the applications are called afresh, then the eligibility criteria regarding experience could be as on the date of the closing date for submitting ORA on the website.

 

24. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in these O.As. They are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

 

The respondent No.1 – UPSC is directed to declare the results of the applicants and take further appropriate and necessary action in accordance with law. It is made clear that since in terms of the interim directions the applicants were permitted to participate in the selection process, the observations made hereinabove will be confined to the applicants herein only.”

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023052116846708932023%20CAT%20-%20Satish%20Anand.pdf

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

[Satish Anand & Ors. Vs. UPSC & Ors., O.A. No. 1394/2021, decided on 15.05.2023, 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

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

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

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023042116820498122023%20CAT%20-%20Arvind%20Kaushik.pdf

 

[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