The court emphasized that it would not interfere with the Tribunal's judgment and highlighted the importance of technology in both enabling solutions and creating problems.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Cm No.20356/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 6474/2021 &

CM NO.20355/2021 [Application field on behalf of the petitioners seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 31.08.2020]

CM NO.20357/2021 [Application field on behalf of the petitioners seeking leave to bring on record additional documents]

2. Via this writ petition, challenge is laid to the judgement dated 31.08.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal").

2.1 The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgement, principally, on account of the directions contained therein, whereby, in effect, the respondent has been accorded an opportunity to change his category from "unreserved" (in short "UR") to "economically weaker section" (in short "EWS").

2.2. Mr. Harish Kumar Garg, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the impugned judgement is flawed, as it would impact the manner in which examinations are conducted by the petitioners in future.

3. Briefly, the controversy in the case veers around the following circumstances.

3.1 Petitioner no. 1 i.e. the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), had uploaded a notice for appointment of Constable (Executive), in the Delhi Police in both male and the female category.

3.2. The notice for conducting the examination for appointment to the aforementioned posts was uploaded on the petitioners' website on 01.08.2020. The closing date for receipt of the applications was 07.09.2020.

3.3. As per the aforesaid notice, the applicants had to follow a two-step procedure. The first step involved registration, while the second step involved uploading of the online application.

3.4. It appears that the respondent, as alluded to above, made a mistake in indicating in his application that he fell in the EWS category. Pertinently, at the time when the respondent had filled up the online registration form, the EWS category was not available. However, Mr. Garg, on behalf of the petitioners', emphasizes that, the instructions uploaded on the website [which formed part of the aforementioned notice of examination], provided ample opportunity to the applicants, which included the respondent, to edit and/or amend the online application form i.e. change his category from UR to EWS. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to Annexure-II, Sr. No.18 of the notice of examination [1] , which is appended on page 93 of the paper book. [See Footnote 1].

3.5. It appears that the respondent, in this behalf, had made a representation to the petitioners, which remained unanswered. This impelled the respondent to approach the Tribunal for obtaining requisite relief. The Tribunal, as indicated above, disposed of the respondent's original application [OA], and while doing so, issued the following directions:

"8. We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing that

(a) the applicant shall approach the office of the 2nd respondent on 03.09.2020 at 10:30am.

(b) the Regional Director shall identify an officer to assist the applicant to upload the relevant entries in the form.

(c) Once that is done, the application so submitted by the applicant shall be treated as the basis and not the one earlier.

There shall be no order as to costs."

4. Mr. Garg informs us that the respondent, in the meanwhile, has taken the examination for appointment to the post of constable, albeit, as a UR candidate.

4.1 Therefore, to our minds, insofar as the examinations, that would possibly held in future are concerned, they would not get impacted, as is apprehended by the petitioners, as the directions contained in the impugned judgement are confined to the respondent.

4.2. The Tribunal, in this case, has exercised its discretion in the matter and issued certain directions having regard to the circumstances which obtained in the matter.

4.2. Given the foregoing circumstances, we would refrain from supplanting our views with those of the Tribunal as that is not the remit of this Court under Article 226 of the