Compensation for financial loss caused by erroneous rejection of candidature.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) (Post Code 16/19). She appeared in the relevant recruitment examination on 19.11.2019 and was declared as a successful candidate after having secured 106 marks, the cut-off marks were 102.

2. She was permitted to upload the requisite supporting documents apropos her candidature, on the website of the respondent. She was unable to do so within the specified time because while travelling she had lost her bag in which the relevant documents were kept.

3. She lodged an FIR on 08.07.2020 reporting the loss of her bag and the documents. She applied for issuance of duplicate documents, which, upon receipt she promptly uploaded on the respondent's website. However, her candidature was rejected by DSSSB because the documents were "posted after the cut-off date". Some error was also pointed out by the DSSSB apropos the date of declaration of her result as 09.07.2020, by State Council of Educational Research and Training ("SCERT"), whereas the correct date of declaration of result was 31.05.2019. Evidently, the error was because of inadvertence of SCERT, for which the petitioner suffered but cannot be blamed.

4. A representation was made by her to remove the ambiguity in the said letter date of declaration of result by SCERT, which went unanswered. Her request to the DSSSB to permit her to update the requisite documents on e-dossier portal was not acceded to. The petitioner contends that the said silence results in injustice to her.

5. Before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT"), the respondent had contended that the petitioner, like other candidates, was granted two opportunities to upload the relevant documents but she defaulted. The impugned order has opined that sufficient opportunity having been afforded to her, the rejection of her candidature on account of non-furnishing of requisite documents, would be interpreted as her not possessing the requisite eligibility. Her O.A. was therefore dismissed in limine.

6. While issuing notice, this Court had noted on 15.02.2022 as under:

"4.1. Admittedly, the petitioner qualified the written exam, and had secured marks above the cut-off marks stipulated by the respondents. The cut-off marks stipulated by the respondents were 102, whereas the petitioner had secured 106 marks.

4.2. The relevant part of the impugned rejection notice no.806 dated 16.08.2021, issued by respondent no. 1, reads as:

5. Mr Aggarwal says that unlike other candidates, the petitioner, contrary to what has been stated in the impugned rejection notice, was not given two opportunities to upload the deficient/requisite documents in the e-dossier."

7. The learned counsel for the DSSSB states, upon instructions, that the petitioner's case has been reviewed and happily petitioner has been declared a successful candidate. Her e-dossier has been uploaded and she has been provisionally selected; her e-dossier has been sent to the Directorate of Education to for appropriate corollary action.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks three reliefs-(i) her appointment should relate back to the date when her batchmates were appointed as per the merit and seniority list; (ii) she should be given the back wages because of an admitted error having been committed by the DSSSB in not processing her case earlier, for no fault of the petitioner and (iii) exemplary costs be imposed upon the respondent