Delhi High Court
Vikas Chaudhary vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 27 November, 2015
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9869/2015, CM APPL. No. 23868/2015
Date of Judgment : 27th November, 2015
VIKAS CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Anil Mittal, Ms. Komal Aggarwal
and Mr. Kuber Giri, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Devesh Singh, Additional Standing
Counsel for R-1, 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. With the consent of the parties, we have set down the matter for
final hearing.
2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 11.09.2015
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Pursuant to
an advertisement published by respondent No. 2/Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board (DSSSB) bearing No. 2/2012 in the
magazine "Employment News" in May, 2012 pertaining to filling
up various posts including that of 24 posts of Motor Vehicle
Inspector in Transport Department being Post Code-21/12, the
petitioner made an application to the office of DSSSB on
15.06.2012. In one of the column in the prescribed form, the
petitioner was to provide information regarding his postal address.
The petitioner at that stage was 33 years of age. Petitioner
submited his application form by hand on 15.06.2012. Since, the
petitioner belongs to Other Backward Classes, he applied under
reserved category. As per the advertisement, the application form
was to be filled up manually on paper based form and was to be
submitted either in person or by post. It is the case of the
petitioner that at that stage, online applications were not
introduced. As per Section „C‟ of the advertisement in Clause 11
(iii) under the head "General Instruction for Candidates", it was
stated that admit card of the candidates would be dispatched to
them by post. Based on this Clause 11 (iii), the petitioner kept on
waiting for the admit card or any other information which had to be
provided by DSSSB by post. In August, 2014, the DSSSB
published a list of candidates, who had applied for the post of
Motor Vehicle Inspector on its website. The petitioner did not
receive the result by post. The petitioner learnt that his name
figured against the ID No. 2291150. The petitioner also learnt that
on 16.09.2014, after a gap of two years, the DSSSB introduced the
OARS (Online Application Registration Scheme) and uploaded a
notice on the newly created website informing those candidates,
who have already applied in the paper based form to fill up the
form again and upload the same in OARS. It was also stated on the
website that in case any candidate failed to do so, his candidature
would stand cancelled. No individual information was sent to the
petitioner as per Clause 11 (iii) of the advertisement. It is the case
of the respondents that various notices have also been published on
07.10.2014, 13.10.2014 and 21.10.2014 in National Dailies i.e.
Hindustan Times and Indian Express informing the candidates who
had already applied on paper based application form to fill up the
same in OARS latest by 03.11.2014. The petitioner claims to have
missed the public notice and he did not reapplied on OARS,
resultantly, the name of the petitioner do not figure in the final list.
Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal on 17.12.2014. He was provisionally permitted to appear
in the examination. The petitioner claims to have cleared the
written examination but for the lapse on his part in reloading his
form as per the OARS he claims to be eligible in all respect.
3. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one seat
is also lying vacant and in case, he is not granted employment not
only he would suffer; no benefit would be gained by the
department as well. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner
also contends that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the
petitioner had furnished all his particulars along with requisite fee
in paper based application form which was available in the records
of DSSSB, moreso, the name of the petitioner appeared in the list
of candidates, who had applied for the post of Motor Vehicle
Inspector and in case the DSSSB had introduced OARS and
wanted that eligible candidates should apply and furnish their
particulars again online then it was duty bound to intimate the
candidates individually rather than by issuing a public notice in the
newspaper. Mr. Mittal also contends that DSSSB sought
information from the candidates online in September, 2014 which
has already been furnished by the candidates in the year 2012 and
since it was a mere formality thus non supply of the information on
OARS should not have resulted in cancellation of the candidature
of the eligible candidates. Counsel has strongly urged before this
court that as per Section „C‟ of the advertisement in clause 11 (ii)
under the head "General Instructions for Candidates", it was
clearly mentioned that the Admit Cards of the candidates would be
dispatched to them by post and as such the petitioner was expecting
his admit card or any other information from the DSSSB by post,
thus it was incumbent upon DSSSB to inform the listed candidates
individually that non submission of particulars subsequently online
would result in cancellation of their candidature and sending
information through public notice is invariably adopted/resorted to
when it is for the benefit of the people unknown. Mr. Mittal also
contends that the Tribunal has erroneously observed that if the
petitioner was capable of spotting the advertisement in the year
2012 then he was also capable of spotting the notice in September,
2014. Mr. Mittal has explained that a person in search of a job
scrutinises the advertisement in Employment related magazines
with a hawk eye but once he is registered as a candidate with an
organization, then he does not expect to hear from the organization
through public notice and it was too farfetched to expect from the
candidates that they would look for a notice public advertisement
in the newspaper regarding filling up of information of OARS
when exams were to be fixed by the DSSSB more than two years
after having applied for the post.
4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
present writ petition and submits that a public notice was given in
English dailies and the petitioner should have looked at the
newspaper and reloaded the application form as per the OARS. He
also relies upon the reasoning of learned Tribunal in support of his
submission.
5. We have heard counsel for both the parties and their rival
contentions.
6. It is not in dispute that an advertisement notice was published in
the year 2012 and petitioner made an application. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioner has cleared all the examination and has
been found eligible. The case of the petitioner has only been
rejected by the respondent as he did not fill up the form as per
public notice which was issued two years after the first
advertisement to fill up the form in OARS.
7. We are satisfied with the reasoning and explanation rendered that
the petitioner has acted in a bonafide manner and he was mislead
firstly for the reason that he applied pursuant to an advertisement
released in the year 2012 and secondly because of Clause 11 (iii) of
the advertisement as per which, the admit card was to be
dispatched to the candidates by post. Once the candidate has filled
up the application form, he could not reasonably have expected that
terms of the advertisement would be changed without issuing a
specific notice to him.
8. We find that in the absence of a specific notice having been issued
to the petitioner for reloading the application in OARS, he cannot
be deprived of the benefit which had accrued to him.
Consequently, we set aside and quash the order of the Tribunal
dated 11.09.2015 and declare that DSSSB has wrongly denied the
consideration of the petitioner candidature for the post of Motor
Vehicle Inspector. The case of the petitioner for appointment shall
be considered in accordance with law, within 4 weeks of receipt of
this order, if all other eligible criteria have been met.
9. Present writ petition and all pending applications are disposed of.
No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 27, 2015
gr
