AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member(A)
The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents in not appointing her, although she had been duly selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery), Post Code 68/10 for the year 2010. While filling the form for the said post she had given her old address as she was staying with her parents at that time. Thereafter, while filling up the form for the second post under Post Code No.3/13, she had filled up the new address where she is presently staying after she got married. A common examination for the posts was held on 31.08.2013. The combined result was declared initially on 09.12.2015, where after some of the candidates approached this Tribunal in OA No.436/2016. The result was initially issued on 01.04.2016 and finally on 17.04.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant had filled the new address while applying for the second post under post code No.3/13 and it was for the respondents to send her call letter to the new address and not to the old address. The revised result which was declared in pursuance of the directions in OA No.436/2016, the applicant‟s name appeared at Sl. No.1 in her category i.e. SC. The applicant came to know about it only when some candidates, junior to her in the merit list, started joining. Thereafter, she represented on 22.03.2021 to the Special Director(Education) and Secretary (Education) also for considering her name for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery). When no action was taken by the respondents on her representations, she had no other alternative but to approach this Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the offer of appointment made by the user department i.e. MCD under Post Code 68/2010 has not been cancelled till date and is alive. The applicant cannot be held responsible for not taking any action after her being declared successful, as it was the duty of the respondents to send her offer of appointment with respect to Post Code 3/13 at her new address. The offer of appointment sent by the Directorate of Education was returned undelivered because it had not been sent to her new address.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents stated as under:-
It was incumbent upon the applicant to advise the change of address to the respondents since the two applications had been filed separately at different points of time. It was certainly not the duty of the respondents to automatically take the second address against the first post also.
The applicant was selected for the post Code 68/10 under the user department MCD. MCD, in turn, did send the offer of appointment to the applicant vide two letters dated 21.07.2017 and 01.08.2017 on her address given in the application form for that particular post. This was the sole address available on the dossier and the respondent department obviously sent it to the last known address. However, both the letters, sent through “Speed Post”, were returned with the endorsement „unserved‟. In the second letter dated 01.08.2017, it was clearly mentioned that the applicant had been earlier advised to join but she did not respond. The following had been recorded in the said letter:-
“2.Your name has been recommended by the DSSSB for the post of Teacher(Nursery) under post code 68/2010. You were directed to report to this Office for Verification of Documents on 31.07.2017 at 10:00 A.M. vide D/ADE/DRC/Edu/HQ/SDMC/2017/2091 dated 21.07.2017 but you did not turn up for verification of documents on scheduled date and time.
3.You are once again directed to report for verification of documents on 21/08/2017 at 10:30 A.M. at South Delhi Municipal Corporation Education Department HQ 23 Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre New Delhi.
4.This is last and final opportunity for verification of documents. In case of failure to report for verification of documents, your candidature will be cancelled and your dossier will be sent back to DSSSB. No further communication in this regard will be entertained in future.”
In the aforesaid communication, it was made clear that this was the last and final opportunity for verification of documents and in case of failure, no further communication, in this regard, would be entertained in future.
That the applicant vide representations placed at Sl. No.45 to 57 of the OA has addressed all these representations to various functionaries of the department. However, none of the representations was addressed to DSSSB because of which the grievance of the applicant could not be redressed and no action was taken by them.
The last result notice was declared in the year 2021. The applicant waited for four years before representing. During this period several result notices were issued. However, she did not take cognizance of any of the result notices, which shows lack of vigilance on her part. It is not understood, as to why she had waited till 2021 while she was shown at Sl. No.1 in her category in the first result notice. Moreover, it had been clearly mentioned in the second communication that in case the applicant does not appear for document verification, her candidature will be cancelled. 7. It was for the applicant to be vigilant and active enough to advice the change of address to the Post Office concerned as well as to the respondents. She is trying to pass on her responsibility to the respondents for a lapse which is totally hers.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
It transpires from the above discussion that the applicant had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) Post Code 68/10 for the year 2010 and for the same post under Post Code 3/13 during the year 2013. A common examination for both the posts was held on 31.08.2013. While applying for the first time, she had given her old address where she was residing with her parents and while filling up the second form, she had given her new address where she is presently staying after her marriage. It so happened that she had been selected against the first application and was sent offer of appointment by the user department at her old address, which was mentioned in the application for that particular post. The offer of appointment was sent twice with a clear stipulation that in case she does not respond, her candidature would be cancelled. However, the letters came back undelivered.
The bone of contention is that the applicant feels that it was incumbent upon the respondents to check the two applications and should have sent the offer of appointment at the new address, whereas learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant is trying to pass on her own responsibility by blaming the respondents for sending her offer of appointment at the old address. Learned counsel for the respondents has also stated that the applicant waited for four long years from 2017 when the result was declared to 2021 when she made the first representation. Moreover, it was her duty to inform the respondents about her change of address and also to inform the post office about the same. He has argued that as the applicant herself has not been vigilant and waited for four long years, therefore, her claim is not tenable.
We find that there is weight in the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents. Intimation about the change of address is obviously the responsibility of the applicant only. Further, it is also the responsibility of the applicant to check the progress of selection through the official website of the respondents and/or by checking from their office.
In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the action of the respondents as they had sent the offer of appointment on the address available in the application submitted by the applicant for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) Post Code 68/10 for which she had been selected. We, therefore, find that the instant OA lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.