Candidates are responsible for timely compliance with selection processes, and failure to submit required documents punctually can lead to exclusion from consideration, regardless of merit.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral):-

CM APPL. 14119/2022

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4721/2022 & CM APPL. 14118/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. This writ petition assails the order dated 15.02.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short 'Tribunal'] in O.A. No. 357/2022. The Tribunal, via the impugned order dated 15.02.2022, has dismissed the petitioner's O.A.

3. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal with the grievance that even though he had qualified the written examination, he was not considered for selection by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [in short 'DSSSB'] against Advertisement No. 04/20, dated 04.01.2020, only for the reason that the e-dossier which had to be uploaded before the stipulated cut- off date, had not been uploaded by that date by the petitioner.

3.1. To be noted, the petitioner had applied for the post of PGT (Fine Arts) (Male) (Post Code 83/20) against the aforementioned advertisement. It is not disputed that the e-dossier had to be uploaded by the shortlisted candidates, within a span period ranging between 07.10.2021 and 21.10.2021.

3.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner, although registered with DSSSB, did not open the assigned portal, and, therefore, in a sense, was responsible for his lack of awareness that he had to upload the e-dossier within the time span set out above. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was ailing during that period, and, therefore, did not take the necessary steps i.e., of opening the web portal.

3.3. It is also accepted by the petitioner that since he had changed his mobile phone number, he was unable to access the text message, that may have been sent by the DSSSB in the ordinary course, concerning the marks obtained by him in the written examination conducted for the aforementioned post. The petitioner, however, claims that although he had attempted to upload the information with regard to his changed mobile number on DSSSB's website, he did not succeed.

4. Mr Aggarwal contends, in support of the petitioner's case, that representations were made, with regard to the petitioner's inability to upload the e-dossier in time, on 12.11.2021, 15.11.2021 and 24.11.2021. To be noted though, that the record bears testimony to only representations dated 15.11.2021 and 24.11.2021.

4.1. Mr Aggarwal goes on to state that since at least two chances were given to other candidates, the petitioner ought to have been given at least one chance to upload his e-dossier, as he had otherwise passed the written examination and in his category [i.e., the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category], he, admittedly, has secured more marks than the last candidate who has been selected for the subject post.

4.2. In support of his plea, our attention has been drawn by Mr Aggarwal to the first recall notice dated 11.11.2021 and the second recall notice dated 29.11.2021. These recall notices, broadly, gave opportunity to those candidates to correct deficiencies qua documents that had already been uploaded by them. Based on this, Mr Aggarwal contends that the exclusion of the petitioner was unfair.

4.3. Furthermore, Mr Aggarwal has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Food Corporation of India v. Rimjhim, 2019(5) SCC 793.

4.4. Based on the observations made in the aforesaid judgment, Mr Aggarwal says that since the petitioner possess the essential qualifications, he should not have been excluded from consideration for appointment to the subject post only because