AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs :-
"8 Direct the Respondent No.2 to provide technical assistance to the Applicant to open the OTR portal and enable him to submit his DAF-1 for Civil Services (Main) Examination 2024 in the substantial interest of justice.
Any other and further relief may also be granted as this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel for the applicant is that on 14.02.2024, the respondent no. 2 Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) advertised Exam notice No. 05/2024 CSP for selection of candidates for Civil Services. On 16.06.2024 the applicant appeared in the aforesaid Preliminary Exam of the Civil Services under EWS category, which he qualified as per the result declared by the respondents on 01.07.2024. Vide an Email dated 03.07.2024 sent by the respondents to the applicant, he was directed to fill up online Detailed Application Form-I (DAF-I) through One Time Registration (OTR) on or before 12.07.2024 via portal of respondent no.2. The applicant made several attempts to fill the DAF-1 online through the concerned Portal, but due to technical glitch he could not login into OTR. It is needless to say that Portal of DAF-I can be assessed only by login into OTR. Feeling vulnerable, the applicant sought assistance from the Helpline number but there was no response from there also. Later, having no other option, the applicant sent an Email dated 13.07.2024 to the respondent no. 2 seeking alternate mechanism for filing up the DAF-I but to no avail. Finally, the applicant visited the office of respondent no. 2 on 15.07.2024 and submitted a written complaint in this regard but he has not received any response from respondent no. 2 till date. Hence the OA.
Learned counsel of the applicant argued vociferously and took the following grounds :-
“A. BECAUSE the Applicant is one of the successful candidate in Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination-2024 wherein only 14,000 could clear the above said Examination of total appeared candidates upto 13,00,000 (Approximately).
B. BECAUSE admittedly as per prescribed procedure, one can fill up the DAF-I only through login via OTR portal provided by UPSC to the individual candidates.
C. BECAUSE the applicant made several attempts to open the OTR but the portal could not be opened.
D. BECAUSE the Applicant could not get any assistance from the Helpline of respondent no.2 in this regard.
E. BECAUSE the applicant is stationed in a remote village of U.P. and it is not possible for him to pay frequent visits to the office of Respondent No.2 personally every now and then.
F. BECAUSE even the Email of Applicant dated 13.07.2024 and subsequent letter dated 15.07.2024 coupled with the personal visit to the office of respondent No. 2 could not bring any solution to the problem of the Applicant.
G. BECAUSE the aforementioned situation is beyond the control of the applicant and the Applicant cannot be made to suffer on account of networking problem of technical glitches.
H. BECAUSE it is still within the competence of Respondent No. 2 to allow the Applicant to submit his DAF-1 in the office with Respondent No. 2 itself with their technical support.
I. BECAUSE the date for conducting the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2024 is fixed as 20.09.2024 and therefore, there is no possibility of causing any prejudice to anyone if the applicant is allowed to submit his DAF-1 with the technical assistance and administrative favour of respondent No. 2.
J. BECAUSE if the prayer of Applicant is not allowed, then the Applicant is bound to suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any other manner.
K. BECAUSE the act of respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice.”
However, this was vehemently opposed by the counsel of the Respondent no. 2 (UPSC) who placed on record the copy of Instructions to candidates for filling Detailed Application Form (DAF)-I for Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2024 which at the very top mentions :-
Date of STARTING for filing online DAF : 03.07.2024
Date of CLOSING for filing online DAF : 12.07.2024 and inter alia states in paras 4.1 and 12 respectively as under:-
4.1The qualified candidates seeking admission to the Civil Services (Main) Examination must apply online through the Commission's website (www.upsc.gov.in) by filling the Detailed Application Form 1 (DAF-1) and uploading the scanned copies of the required document within the prescribed time limit so that DAF - I is submitted by the applicant on time.
12 A candidate must upload along with DAF 1 a scanned copy of the relevant certificate showing that he has one of the qualifications prescribed in Rule 6 of CSE Rules, 2024. The certificate uploaded must be one issued by the Competent Authority fie. University or other examining body awarding the particular qualification. Attention is invited to Notes I and IV under Rule 6 of the Rules for the Civil Services Examination, 2024. All candidates who are declared qualified by the Commission for taking the Civil Services (Main) Examination will be required to upload the proof of passing the requisite minimum educational qualification along with their application (ie. Detailed Application Form I) for the Main Examination, failing which such candidates will not be admitted to the Main Examination. Such proof of passing the requisite qualifying examination should have been issued latest by the closing date of Detailed Application Form I of the Civil Services (Main) Examination. (Please refer Rule 6 of CSE Rules, 2024).”
He justified the action of the Respondents as just, bona fide and in accordance with the law by relying on the Judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi” reported in AIR 2006 SC 2609. He also stated that the applicant had not approached CAT with clean hands and not disclosed the true and correct facts. He further submitted that it is trite in law that the Examination Rules and the advertisement and instructions issued there under for recruitment are mandatory in nature and everybody i.e., the employer, employee, including Courts/Tribunals, are bound by mandatory provisions. It is further trite in law that there should not be any deviation from such mandatory provisions on any ground, i.e., hardship or otherwise. It is further submitted that no relief can be granted nor can such relief be prayed which are contrary to the mandatory provisions on the ground of hardship or otherwise.
He placed reliance on the following judgments :-
"Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors", reported as (2011) 12 SCC 85, paras 29 & 32;
"State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr", reported as 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1113, paras 8 & 10;
"Dr. M. Vennila vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission", reported as 2006 (3) CTC 449, para 25.
"Dr. Anandamoy Ghosh vs. UOI & Ors", reported as 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 21543, para 14.
"State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan", reported as 2021 SCC OnLine 1262, paras 16 & 17.”
He further pleaded that the issue involved in this matter is no more res-integra and the same had already been decided on 08.09.2022 by CAT in the matter of “Pankaj Choudhary vs. Union of India in OA No. 2438/2022 which has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 22.09.2022 in W.P (c) No. 13747/2022. The issue has also been decided upto Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Union of India vs. Anu Kumari & Anr.”, Civil Appeal No. 3877/2019 vide judgment dated 11.04.2019.
Further UPSC is a constitutional body established under Articles 315-323, Chapter II, Part XIV of the Constitution of India. Further it was stated that 15 reminder mails and SMSs had been sent by UPSC to him in frequent intervals on his registered email ID and mobile no. throughout the duration of filing of DFA-I from 3rd July 2024 to 12th July, 2024. The applicant had attempted to log in through OTR on 11.07.2024 and had generated OTP request through email four (04) times, however, the candidate used the OTP received to login only once but could not succeed due to OTP mismatch. The applicant had also attempted to login through password twice but could not succeed due to incorrect password. Also a total of 14627 candidates have qualified the CSP 2024, out of which 14597 candidates have finally submitted the DAF-I. Out of these 3855 candidates have submitted their application during 11.07.2024 to 12.07.2024 and no technical glitch had been reported during this period of filling up the DAF-I. From the above data, it is crystal clear that the applicant was hatching a wrong and concocted story with ulterior motive to cover up his own lapses of not filling up the DAF-I within the stipulated time for the said purpose.
Heard the learned counsel of both the sides ; examined the documents on record and went through the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court ; High Court and CAT. On point of facts it is difficult to believe that a diligent and intelligent candidate for the Civil services examination – in this case the applicant who had successfully cleared the Civil Services (Preliminary Examination) 2024 could not upload his DAF-I within the time window given between 3rd July, 2024 to 12th July, 2024. Therefore, there seems to be negligence and carelessness on the part of the applicant. As per the version of UPSC, 15 reminder mails and SMSs had been sent by UPSC to him at frequent intervals on his registered email ID and mobile no. throughout the duration of filing of DFA-I from 3rd July 2024 to 12th July, 2024. The applicant had attempted to log in through OTR on 11.07.2024 and had generated OTP request through email four (04) times, however, the candidate used the OTP received to login only once but could not succeed due to OTP mismatch. The applicant had also attempted to login through password twice but could not succeed due to incorrect password.
A total of 14627 candidates had qualified the CSP 2024, out of which 14597 candidates have finally submitted the DAF-I. Out of these 3855 candidates had submitted their application during 11.07.2024 to 12.07.2024 and no technical glitch had been reported during this period of filling up the DAF-I. From the above data, it is crystal clear that the applicant is crafting a Cock and Bull story with ulterior motive to cover up his own lapses of not filling up the DAF-I within the stipulated time for the said purpose.
Also on point of law, the issues in these kind of matters are no longer res integra but already decided as per the ratio given in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifuduallah Khan & Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85.
“29.We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation a in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32.In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the b advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list.”
In fact, this ratio was relied upon while passing the judgment in case of “Pankaj Chaudhary vs. Union of India in OA No. 2438/2022 dated 08.09.2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal which was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 13747/2022 dated 22.09.2022 wherein it has been held that “The timelines prescribed by UPSC for candidates to upload the form are sacrosanct and cannot be tinkered with.”
In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the present OA is covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 2438/2022 (supra).
Accordingly, we are of the firm conviction that the balance of convenience clearly lies with the respondents in this case; that the instant OA lacks merit ; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.