Vandana v. Government of NCT of Delhi

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by which OA filed by the petitioner herein stands dismissed.

4. Mrs. Oberoi, learned counsel for the respondent enters appearance on an advance copy.

5. We have taken up the matter for hearing with the consent of the parties.

6. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 4 published an advertisement NO. 07/2007 for the post of TGT (Sanskrit). Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being fully eligible applied for the 2015:DHC:10168-DB TGT(Sanskrit) (Post Code: 154/07) on 26.10.2007. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had truly and faithfully mentioned in detail all her qualifications in the application form that at the relevant time the petitioner had appeared in B.Ed examination and the result was awaited. Thus, she did not conceal or suppress any fact or information much less any material fact. Counsel submits that after the respondents examined the form of the petitioner, the detailed mentioned therein and the documents attached, the respondents accepted the eligibility of the petitioner and allowed her to appear in the written examination. It is submitted that the petitioner had successfully passed the examination conducted by respondent no.4 for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) and the DSSSB declared the petitioner as successful in the said examination and after the declaration of the final result, the respondents verified all requisite documents pertaining to qualifications, age etc. and asked the petitioner to produce a provisional certificate of professional degree (B.Ed.) from the university concerned and the petitioner, as per the desire of the respondents, produced the said certificates also. It is submitted that after having verified all the documents/certificates etc. and having satisfied themselves, the respondents issued offer of appointment to the petitioner for the post of TGT(Sanskrit). It is submitted that the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued offer of appointment to the petitioner for the post of TGT(Sanskrit) vide Memorandum No.DE-3(33) E.III/DR/09/6291 dated 23.02.2009. It is submitted that on 27.07.2009, in response to the offer of appointment, the petitioner joined the post and has ever since been performing her duties with the utmost dedication, devotion, diligence and discipline. The petitioner was appointed on provisional basis on the said post vide order No.DE.3(33)/E-III/DR/2009/2045[4] dated 11.08.2009 issued by Directorate of Education, Delhi. It is further submitted that from 22.09.2009 to 26.09.2009, the petitioner participated in the five days training programme on YUVA-SLP(School Life Skills Programme) conducted by State Council of Educational Research and Training, which is an autonomous organization of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. On 29.04.2010, the petitioner herein was appointed as an Enumerator for the purpose of Census of India, 2011. It is submitted that on 18.09.2010 after more than a year of her joining duty, the petitioner was shocked and surprised to receive a show cause notice on totally false, frivolous and baseless grounds that petitioner did not posses the required qualification and she was asked to give reply thereto within three days only and the petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice within the prescribed period.

7. It is also submitted that in October, 2010 the petitioner herein filed an OA No.3504/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. On 22.10.2010, the said OA was listed by the learned Tribunal and notices were issued to the respondents and the Tribunal also directed to maintain status quo as of date. It is submitted that during the pendency of the OA, the petitioner was given various duties which were performed by her to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. Vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2015, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said OA filed by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application form, the petitioner had made a correct declaration that she had appeared for the examination and thus she had not violated column 11 of the offer of appointment and there was no false information which was furnished by her nor she had concealed any vital information or made any misrepresentation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not fill up the application form truthfully and a false declaration was made. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per column 16 (b) of the form, it was mandatory for the candidate to disclose as to whether she had the essential qualification and experience as on the closing date of receipt of application, to which she had answered in the positive.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions and also perused the order passed by the Tribunal.

11. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is,

(i) As to whether the petitioner was eligible on the date the application form was filled up; (ii) Whether the petitioner had made any false declaration in the application form; and (iii) Whether the petitioner had informed the respondents that she had appeared in the examination and thus, there was no false declaration.

12. It is not in dispute that as per the advertisement 07/2007 for the post of TGT (Sanskrit), a candidate was required to possess all essential educational qualification as on the date of receipt of the application i.e. 27.10.2007. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was awarded the B.Ed. Mark Sheet on 28.01.2008 and B.Ed. Provisional Certificate on 28.01.2009 i.e. subsequent to the cut off date.

13. Column 16 (b) of the application form would show that the petitioner had made a positive assertion that she possessed essential education qualification and experience as on the closing date. Column 16(b) of the application form reads as under: (b) “DO YOU POSSESS THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE AS ON CLOSING DATE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION. Tick Mark  in the box) Yes  No

14. The applicant had marked ‘yes’ in the column provided. A photocopy of the form which is handed over in Court shows that the word ‘appeared’ has been written, but with naked eye it can be seen that the writing is different and even otherwise, there was no such column provided to make such an endorsement, besides the fact that reading of column 16(b) would show only two answers were provided, whether the candidate possessed the essential qualification and experience as on the closing date of receipt of the application and the applicant had clearly marked the column ‘yes’. A bare examination of the form would show that the word ‘appeared’ had been added subsequently. Even the word ‘appeared’ would have no bearing and can be of no benefit to the petitioner.