Full Text
J
A.
'•A'
$' r HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofdecision:26"'February,2019
NEHA .•••• Petitioner
Through: Ms.Sripama Chatterjee,Adv.
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Seema Dolo,Advs.for CBSE
Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC for R-2 with Ms. Manisha Saroha, •Mr.,; N. K. Singh, Adv. for
Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD(Services),for R-3
ORDER(ORAL)
26J)L2D1^' ^
JUDGMENT
1. 4366 vacancies, for appointment in various posts in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, were notified by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "the DSSSB")vide advertisementdated 26^''June,2018.
2. The petitioner, admittedly,satisfied the qualification prescribed for the post of Primary Teacher which was covered under the said advertisement, as prescribed therein. She, therefore, applied for the said post, but was not selected on the ground that she had failed to qualify the Combined Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET), which is W.P.(C)1358/2019 Page 1 of[3] 2019:DHC:7903 conduct6d by th[6] Central Board ofSecondary Education(hereinafter referred to as"the CBSB")and is an essential prerequisite forthe said appointment as per Section 23 ofthe Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,2009.
3. The petitioner appeared on 9^^ December,2018,for the CTET, and, to her discomfiture, while the test booklet given to her was having the Code T,the Code recorded on the answer sheet was'J'. It is stated that, on the petitioner informing the invigilator of this discrepancy,she was advised to fill in the answers in the answer sheet treating it as her answer sheet with Code."I",instead ofCode"J". She did so,
4. However, in the final result, which was announced on 4"^ January, 2019, she was awarded only 36 marks out of 150. It is an admitted position that the petitioner;s answer sheet was marked on the premise that she had been issued;a, ' J(\Code.question paper. 5.. In these circumstances, the CBSE,. proactively, had the petitioner's answer sheet re-examined, tfeating it as an answer sheet for the question paper with Code"I".
6. The grievance in the writ petition, therefore, stands effectively addressed.
7. However,learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,owing to the delay that has been occasioned in this process, her client has W.P.(C)1358/2019 s!— been unable to upload her e-dossiers on the website ofthe DSSSB,the last date for which was 14^^^ February,2019.
8. Needless to say,the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault ofthe CBSE.
9. Mr. N.K.Singh, who appears for the DSSSB, has, very fairly, suggested that, given the peculiar facts of this case, as a one-time relaxation, the petitioner would be permitted to submit her e-dossiers offline during the course ofthe day.
10. Ms. Sripama Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, is agreeable to this suggestion.
11. Mr.Singh undertakes to communicate this order to the DSSSB, so that they would accept the petitioners-^- offline during the course ofthe day. r 12. Needless to say, the petitioner would also be required to complete all other requisite foimalitiekjwhidh- may be required to be completed in thatregard.
13. In view of the above, the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and is,therefore,disposed ofas such.
C.HARtS^HANKAR,J