Anuja Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), 2nd respondent herein, issued the Advertisement No.04/17 proposing to select candidates for different categories of posts, including TGT (Social Science) (Female) with Post Code no.138/17. The applicant responded to the same. However, her candidature was rejected through Rejection Notice No. 447 by stating that the CTET qualification possessed by her is in Science but not in Social Science. Reference was made to the norms of CBSE. The applicant submitted a representation on 27.06.2019 stating that the reason mentioned for rejection of her candidature is not correct. This OA is filed challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in taking a decision on the representation made by the applicant.

2.We heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant made a representation dated 27.06.2019 pointing out her view on the rejection of her candidature. Normally, there should not be any difficulty for the Tribunal in directing the 2nd respondent to pass the order on the representation. However, the rejection is so clear that hardly there exists any doubt about it. The applicant does not dispute that the CTET qualification held by her is in Science, whereas the post to which she applied for is the one in Social Science. If the candidate with qualification in CTET (Science) can be treated as qualified for the post in Social Science, also particularly when there is a separate course in CTET (Social Science), the very requirement becomes redundant. We are of the view that the reason mentioned in the rejection notice does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the OA and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.