Delhi High Court
Rakesh vs Delhi Subordinate Services ... on 30 September, 2019
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 30th September, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 10570/2019
RAKESH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,
Advocates
versus
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
(DSSSB) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel with Mr. N.K. Singh,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM. APPL 43749/2019 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM. APPL 43750/2019 (additional documents)
3. The additional documents be taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
4. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10570/2019
5. Aggrieved by an order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal), the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
6. Notice. Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents accepts
notice.
7. Some necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of
this writ petition, are that an advertisement no.04/2017 was published
by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).
Applications were invited inter alia for appointment to the post of TGT
(Hindi) (Male) (Post Code 140/17) in the Directorate of Education
when 271 vacancies were advertised. The last date of submission of the
application form was 31.01.2018. The petitioner was eligible and
qualified for the post of TGT(Hindi).
8. The online application was submitted by him prior to the cut-off date.
In August, 2018, he received his admit card. He appeared in the
examination, but was not selected as he was short by 0.07 marks.
9. The petitioner contends that question No.17 was incorrect. An OA was
filed, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated
01.08.2019 on the ground that DSSSB had recognized the possibility of
making a mistake in framing questions; and therefore had created a
facility of making a representation between 31.08.2018 and 03.09.2018.
As per the procedure, as soon as the representations are received, they
are referred to the experts; and upon the advice of the experts, necessary
corrective steps are taken.
10. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the answer to question
No.17 was incorrect; and, accordingly the petitioner has suffered due to
negative marking. Had the answer to question No.17 not been wrong,
the petitioner would have succeeded. It is also pointed-out that the
petitioner was only short by 0.07 marks.
11. Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this
petition. She submits that the entire process stands completed.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of making a
representation between 31.08.2018 to 03.09.2018 or even thereafter but
waited for more than ten months before issuing a legal notice on
22.07.2019
14. We are of the considered view that the petitioner did not take recourse
to the aforesaid facility available to him, which was offered by the
respondents during the period from 31.08.2018 to 03.09.2018. We are
informed by Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents that the
DSSSB has already forwarded the result to the User Department and
nothing further can be done by the DSSB. Moreover, at this stage if the
request of the petitioner is entertained, it would lead to endless
litigation. In the above circumstances, we find no infirmity in the view
taken by the Tribunal.
15. We accordingly find no merit in the writ petition. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
pst
