Union Public Service Commission v. Kalpana Ved

1. This writ petition assails a judgment dated 27 February 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in OA/100/4619/2014[2]. The Union Public Service Commission[3] has challenged the order.

2. The dispute pertains to a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination[4] for appointment of Section Officer in the Railway Board Secretariat, undertaken by the respondent consequent to a notification “THE Tribunal” hereinafter Kalpana Ved v UOI “UPSC” hereinafter “LDCE” hereinafter issued by the UPSC on 20 September 2014.

3. The manner in which the application was required to be submitted by the candidates concerned is thus set out in the notice dated 20 September 2014 issued by the UPSC, under the title “COMBINED SECTION OFFICERS/STENOGRAPHERS’ (GRADE-‘B’/GRADE-I) LIMITED DEPARTMENTAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION, 2014”.

any account whatsoever. No application, received after the prescribed last date for receipt of printed copy of the application in the Commission through proper channel, will be entertained under any circumstances and all the late applications will be summarily rejected. They should, therefore, ensure that after verifying the relevant entries and completing the endorsement at the end of the application form, their applications are forwarded by their Department or Head of Office, so as to reach the Commission's Office on or before the prescribed last date.”

4. In the annexure to the said notice, it is again reiterated, at Serial No. 6, thus:

5. Admittedly, the respondent did not submit any copy of her application for participation in the LDCE online as required by the above instruction. Her contention before the Tribunal was that, despite her best efforts, she was not able to submit the application online. She, however, submitted that a hard copy of the application had been submitted to the respondent offline and that, therefore, she should be permitted to participate in the LDCE.

6. The Tribunal, by an interim order dated 24 December 2014, permitted the respondent to provisionally take part in the LDCE.

7. The OA finally came to be disposed of by the Tribunal by judgment dated 27 February 2020, which is under challenge herein. Paras 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment read thus: “2. The applicant states that in spite of her best efforts, she could not apply ‘online’ and though the hard copy of the application was forwarded to the respondents in complete form, she was not issued the admit card for the examination. With this background, she filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to permit her to take part in the LDCE, for the post of Section Officer in the RBSS (Category III).

3. On behalf of respondents, counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that it is on account of fault on the part of the applicant, that she could not apply ‘online’ and had she followed the instructions strictly, there would not have been any difficulty. It is stated that once the applicant did not submit the form ‘online’, she cannot be treated as a candidate and that no relief can be granted to her. *****

5. The respondents have chosen the dual method of submission of applications. First, it is through ‘online’ and thereafter a hard copy of the same is required to be submitted to the HoD. It is not difficult to imagine the handing of computers, particularly when several details are to be furnished. The applicant states that in spite of her best efforts she could not submit the form ‘online’ but she was able to retrieve the form and furnished the same in hard copy of the department. It is also not in dispute that the department forwarded the same to the UPSC without any objection. Though it would have been better and convenient for the UPSC had the ‘online’ application was also received, copy was received, that too with the recommendation of the HoD.

6. An interim order was passed by this Tribunal on 24.12.2014 enabling the applicant to take part in the examination. It is brought to our notice that the applicant took part in the examination. However, the results were not declared.

7. We, therefore, dispose of this OA directing the respondents to declare the result of the applicant and take further steps, depending on the marks obtained by her. We make it clear that in case the applicant qualifies for selection, she shall be issued offer of appointment but without the benefit of arrears of salary. At the same time, she would be entitled to notional seniority based upon the rank in the merit list. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

8. Having perused the judgment of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has proceeded more on sympathy rather than on law. The Tribunal has observed that it was not difficult to imagine handing of computers, particularly when several details were to be furnished. With great respect, such an abstract observation cannot constitute the basis for deciding an application.