The Delhi High Court (HC) has imposed a price of Rs 50,000 on the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for the delay in processing the case of a lady, who was declared a profitable candidate for the submit of assistant trainer in a authorities faculty, on an inaccurate assumption that she did not submit paperwork regardless of two alternatives granted.
The excessive courtroom acknowledged the lady has been constrained to strategy the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in addition to this courtroom with none fault of hers and that the monetary loss having been brought on to her must be compensated in some measure.
“In the circumstances, instead of directing payment of back wages, especially because the petitioner has not joined the services till date, the court imposes costs of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioner by DSSSB, within a period of one month. The petitioner’s appointment letter too be issued within the same period,” a bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Swarna Kanta Sharma mentioned.
The lady petitioner was an aspirant for the submit of assistant trainer (nursery) and appeared within the related recruitment examination on November 19, 2019, and was declared a profitable candidate after securing 106 marks whereas the cut-off marks had been 102.
She was permitted to add the requisite supporting paperwork apropos her candidature, on the web site of DSSSB; nonetheless, she was unable to take action inside the specified time as a result of whereas travelling she had misplaced her bag containing the paperwork, the petition mentioned.
The lady mentioned she had lodged an FIR reporting the lack of her bag and the paperwork and utilized for issuance of duplicate paperwork, which, upon receipt, she promptly uploaded on DSSSB’s web site.
However, the plea talked about her candidature was rejected by DSSSB as a result of the paperwork had been ‘posted after the cut-off date’ and a few error was additionally identified by the authorities regarding the date of declaration of her results of one other examination as July 9, 2020, by State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), whereas the right date of declaration of end result was May 31, 2019.
“Evidently, the error was because of inadvertence of SCERT, for which the petitioner suffered but cannot be blamed,” it mentioned, including that the lady approached the SCERT to take away the paradox within the letter regarding the date of declaration of end result by SCERT, nonetheless, it went unanswered.
Her request to the DSSSB to allow her to replace the requisite paperwork on the e-dossier portal was not acceded to, the plea mentioned, including that the silence resulted in injustice to her. The counsel for DSSSB submitted that the lady’s e-dossier has been uploaded and she or he has been provisionally chosen and her e-dossier has been despatched to the Directorate of Education for applicable corollary motion.
The courtroom, whereas perusing a communication of DSSSB, acknowledged that there’s a clear admission of error within the rejection of petitioner’s candidature on the belief, certainly insistence, of DSSSB that the petitioner had already been given two alternatives to add the requisite paperwork within the e-dossier and that she had failed to take action.
“In the letter of April 1, 2022, DSSSB admits that the petitioner was not given any such opportunity earlier and the first time that she was given the opportunity was by virtue of the said letter. That being the position, the delay in the processing of the petitioner’s case on DSSSB’s own erroneous assumption, cannot be to the petitioner’s disadvantage. Therefore, her not being paid remuneration for the period for which she would otherwise have been employed and earned salaries should be compensated appropriately. There can be no dispute that the petitioner should be accorded seniority in service as per the merit position,” it mentioned.
The courtroom famous that the DSSSB’s counsel submitted that the petitioner’s appointment shall be from the date she is formally appointed after clearance of her medical examination and verification of different paperwork, and her seniority shall be as per the benefit place within the record of profitable candidates, as per the process.
“Be that as it might. The petitioner’s batchmates got two alternatives to finish the formalities however she was not accorded any such alternative. There has been a delay within the processing of her paperwork for no fault of hers. The fault lies within the inaccurate, certainly, informal assumption that two alternatives had been granted to her too.
“The relevant records were not examined by DSSSB. There was a lack of diligence to the petitioner’s detriment. DSSSB’s assumption is negated by its aforesaid admission in the letter dated April 1, 2022. The financial loss having been caused to the petitioner should be compensated in some measure,” it mentioned.
With inputs from PTI.
Read additionally: UGC asks Odisha to halt recruitment in varsities for 3 months, citing keep order by SC
Source: www.financialexpress.com”