JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. The petitioner, Ms. Veena Jha has filed the present petition aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18th January, 1999 passed in OA No. 2814/1997. In the aforesaid original application the petitioner had prayed for direction against the respondent to appoint her as T.G.T. (Social Science) with all consequential benefits and had also prayed for some other reliefs.
2. The petitioner is M.A. (Political Science) and also has a B.Ed degree. The petitioner applied for recruitment as a teacher to the post of TGT (Social Science) pursuant to an advertisement dated 31st May, 1994 taken out by the respondent for recruitment of teachers in different grades/cadres. The petitioner claims that along with the application form she submitted photo copies of various certificates including B.A.(Ist Year) examination result which shows that she had appeared and had cleared English examination of 100 marks. It is a case of the petitioner that she is entitled to 5 extra grading marks as she had cleared English paper of 100 marks at the graduation level and therefore, she should have been given 69 marks for the purpose of recruitment to the post of TGT(Social Science), which is more than the cut of percentage of 66 marks on the basis of which various candidates have been selected.
3. It is a case of the respondent that the petitioner did not submit copy of B.A. (Part-I) examination mark sheet along with the application form for appointment and therefore, she was rightly not given 5 extra marks for the purpose of deciding whether she had qualified for recruitment to the post of TGT(Social Science). It is further submitted by the respondent that they had specifically taken out an advertisement in newspapers dated 8th May, 1996 calling upon various candidates who had passed English paper at graduation level of 100 marks to submit their relevant mark sheet but the petitioner did not submit and/or file copy of the said mark sheet.
4. Learned Tribunal after considering various facts and the contentions of the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not submitted B.A. (Part-I) mark sheet along with the application form and she had also not responded to the advertisement dated 8th May, 1996 requiring her to submit proof of having passed an examination paper in English of 100 marks at graduation level. In these circumstances, it was held that the petitioner was rightly not awarded 5 marks for English as she had not enclosed the relevant proof or produced the same before the authorities. The Tribunal has further held that the action of the respondent was not arbitrary or unreasonable as the petitioner was not able to point out a single case in which a candidate had been appointed on late submission of the relevant documents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the averments made in present writ petition and submitted that the petitioner had filed photo copy of the certificate of having cleared B.A.(Part-I) examination along with the original application form. It was further submitted that the petitioner had produced the original certificates which were verified in July, 1994 and the petitioner was awarded 69 marks and therefore, should have been declared successful as the cut off marks were 66. Contra, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had not filed copy of B.A.(Part-I) examination certificate with the application form and had also not filed the same pursuant to the advertisement dated 8th May, 1996 requesting the candidates to submit proof that they had studied English and cleared one examination paper in English of 100 marks at the graduation level. It was further submitted that all candidates who had submitted their certificates/mark sheet after the cut off date of having passed English examination of 100 marks at graduation level have not been given extra marks. This policy has been universally followed without any exception keeping in view the large number of candidates who had applied and if exception was/is made in one case, then in 19 other similar cases also appointment letters would have to be issued. It was further submitted that almost 10 years have gone by since the appointments were made.
6. To examine the controversy, we asked the respondents to produce the original file relating to the application form/original records filed by the petitioner for recruitment. We have examined the said records. The records reveal that initially the original application filed by the petitioner was not traceable but later on the respondent located the said form. Along with the application form, the petitioner had enclosed some certificates of having cleared B.Ed examination, graduation examination etc,. However, the B.A.(Part-I) examination result/mark sheet had not been included and filed with the application form. We do not think that it will be proper to presume that someone would have removed B.A.(Part-I) examination result/mark sheet if the same was in fact attached with the application form. The file is duly page-numbered. In case the petitioner had filed the examination result of B.A.(Part-I) and someone had removed the same, page numbering would have been different.
7. Moreover, we find that the petitioner had made representation dated 6th August, 1996 against her non-selection. The relevant portion of her representation is as under:-
" On enquiry from the branch on 25th July, 96 I came to know that I was not awarded 05 additional marks for English at graduation. It also came to light that the D. O. E. gave a public notice inviting representations from candidates who did not submit the proofs for having studied English at graduation and the last date for receipt of such representation was fixed as 14.5.96. In this connection I submit that at the time of verification, though not demanded by the officer concerned I deposited all of my marksheets for graduation (including B.A. 1st year marksheet- proof for having studied English at graduation) from the above it is clear that my case was a willful omission in the part of the dealing officer. Now that I am supposed to have been given 69 marks, the Directorate may not side track me with the plea that I did not submit the required marksheet at the time of verification."
8. The above representation clearly shows that the petitioner had not submitted her B.A.(Part-I) mark sheet of her proof of as having passed English paper of 100 marks at graduation level along with her application form for recruitment. Her case as per the said letter was that she had produced the said certificate at the time of verification in July, 1994 and submitted all the requisite documents. This is clearly a different case from the one now set out by the petitioner in the writ petition and one pleaded before the Tribunal that she had submitted B.A.(Part-I) mark sheet/result along with the application form. Her statement in the writ petition to the contrary is quite categorical and is reproduced below.
"At the time of submitting the application, the petitioner submitted the photostat copies of the certificates pertaining to Matriculation qualification, 12th examination, B.A.Part I, Part II, Part III, M.A.(Pol. Science) and B.Ed. The originals of the said documents were to be shown on the next date which was specified in the month of July, 1994, and the same were shown and after due verification, the entry No. was given to the petitioner."
9. It appears to us that the petitioner had not submitted photo copy of the B.A.(Part-I) examination mark sheet with her original application form. There is nothing on record to indicate and show that she had furnished and given copy of her B.A.(Part-I) examination mark sheet in July, 1994 and or produced the originals for verification before the officers concerned. It also appears to us that she missed the advertisement published on 8th May, 1996 requiring candidates to submit proof of having studied and passed one English paper of 100 marks at the graduation level. This is also apparent from the representation dated 6th August, 1996 written by the petitioner, part of which is reproduced above. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the fact that on the original application form, the figure of 69 is also mentioned along with the figure of 64. It is no doubt correct that figure of 69 is mentioned on the original application form along with the figure of 64 but we cannot say when and who had written the said figure. It is possible that the said figure may have been written while making calculation pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner which had been also forwarded for consideration through the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi. The lower portion of the said application form specifically relates to checking of certificates and calculation made on verification of the same. Depending on the course and the marks obtained a criteria was developed and marks were given. The total marks awarded to the petitioner in the said column are 64 and not 69.
10. Keeping in view the disputed questions of fact and on examination of the file, we are of the view that the petitioner had not submitted her B.A.(Part-I) examination mark sheet along with the application form and after the advertisement was published on 8th May, 1996 requiring her to submit proof of having passed one English examination of 100 marks at graduation level. There is no evidence or material to show that she had submitted B.A.(Part-I) examination mark sheet in July, 1994, nor is any such document available on record. Even if, it is presumed that the original B.A.(Part-I) mark sheet was shown to some officers, she was required to furnish and produce the proof of having cleared English paper of 100 marks at graduation level pursuant to advertisement dated 8th May, 1996. This it is admitted was not furnished and produced by the petitioner and therefore, she was rightly awarded 64 marks in stead of 69 marks.
11. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 2597/96 in the case of one Ms. Daya Rani. We have examined the said judgment including the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the Government of Delhi against the said order in Civil Writ Petition No. 4335/1997. The facts of the case are distinguishable as the learned Tribunal in the said case had come to the conclusion that there was a mistake and the aggregate of the graduation mark sheet showed that the candidate therein had studied English as a compulsory paper at the graduation level and therefore, this Court held that inference should have been drawn by the authorities that the candidate had qualified and passed the English paper of 100 marks at the graduation level.
12. In view of the above findings, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.