AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-
The applicant, who is a job aspirant, appeared in the written test on 11.10.2017 under Roll No.2201304259 in Multitasking Staff (Tier-I)] Examination, 2016 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (Respondent No.1). The applicant along with other candidates was provided with blank pages for rough use. As per instructions of the invigilator, she wrote her name and the roll number on the said blank/rough paper.
When the exam was about to start, one of the invigilators approached the applicant’s seat, snatched the rough page and tore the same completely. The applicant objected to that but the invigilator did not answer and kept quiet. However, she requested the invigilator to know the reason behind such an act, despite that he did not say anything but misbehaved with her. In this way, applicant’s precious time to take the exam was considerably wasted.
Later, the applicant applied for the post of Temporary Constable (Exe.) Examination 2016 under Roll No.2201304259. When she downloaded her admit card for Physical Measurement and Endurance Test (PMET), her image and signatures mismatched. She informed the same to respondent no.1 and was allowed to appear in PMET. The same problem again arose when she downloaded the admit card for written examination. She visited SSC Headquarter and Police Recruitment Cell but she was not given any satisfactory reply. She then sent email informing the discrepancy and SSC, in turn replied “Dear Candidate please PMET Admit Card, Four photograph and Original ID Card - appear Examination Centre (Exam Date)”.
Despite having qualified the PMET conducted on 29.03.2017, the applicant was shocked to know that SSC declared the result of Temporary Constable (Exe.) Exam 2016 on 09.02.2018 and her roll number was kept in the list of “debarred candidates”.
The applicant immediately wrote a letter to Secretary, SSC on 12.02.2018 with a request to remove her name from the list of debarred candidates as she was not at fault. She was informed that when she appeared in earlier examination for the post of Multitasking (Non-Technical), she misbehaved with Invigilators and the staff deployed there, hence, on the basis of that episode it was decided to keep her name in the list of debarred candidates.
The aforesaid reason was not true rather the respondents were covering the matter and acted in a rash, negligent and harsh manner by rejecting the candidature of the applicant without issuing any show cause notice. The said act of the respondents amounts to violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Rakesh Kumar Yadav vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. [OA No.1497/2012 and OA No.2573/2012 decided by a common order dated 09.05.2013].
Aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal seeking the following relief:-
“A. Issue direction or order to respondent no.1 to immediately remove the debarred status of the applicant because such debarment is negligently and wrongly put the applicant without giving any single shown cause notice;
B. Issue direction or order to Respondents to immediately declare the result and appoint the applicant with the Respondent Department or any other government department.
C. Alternatively, issue writ in the nature of mandamus or direction or order to respondents to provide an appropriate equitable relief to the applicant to rehabilitate the applicant.
D. Issue directions or orders to the respondents to pay compensation to the applicant for causing harassment and mental trauma to her.”
Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant. They have stated that respondent no.1 SSC published a notice for recruitment of temporary Constables (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2016 in Employment News dated 10.09.2016. The applicant applied and appeared in PMET. Subsequently, she was issued admit card for appearing in Computer Based Written Examination. She appeared in the said examination. However, her result for written examination was not declared as her name was found to be included in the list of debarred candidates.
The applicant was also a candidate for Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff Examination, 2016. The agency M/s Sify, which was conducting the examination on behalf of SSC, reported that the applicant misbehaved with the staff deployed at the examination centre on 11.10.2017 and, hence, the said Agency requested to debar the applicant from Commission’s examinations for a period of three years. The Inspecting Officer, Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma also mentioned in his Inspection Report that the applicant had disobeyed the instructions of the Supervisory staff and shouted on Sify staff.
On the basis of the Inspecting Officer’s report and the report received from the examination conducting Agency, the applicant was debarred from the Commission’s examination for three years from 11.10.2017 to 10.10.2020. Hence, result of her written examination for recruitment of Temporary Constable (Exe.) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2016 was not processed and her name was placed in the list of debarred candidates.
There is no illegality in the action of the Commission and no injustice has been caused to the applicant as she had been debarred from the Commission’s examination due to her conduct reported by the Agency as also the Inspecting Officer.
The applicant has also filed a rejoinder more or less reiterating and re-asserting the averments made in the OA.
Heard Mr. Brijesh Chaudhary with Mr. Abhishek Chaurhdary, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajnish Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record and the written synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the applicant. No written synopsis has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
The crux of the matter is whether debarment of the applicant for three years in an earlier examination without issuing show cause notice can be the basis for not processing her result of subsequent examination meant for Temporary Constable (Exe.) Male & Female, despite having been declared qualified in PMET test?
The respondents’ stand for keeping the name of the applicant in the list of debarred candidates is that in an earlier examination she misbehaved with the staff of the Agency deployed to conduct the examination which was endorsed by the Inspecting Officer as well. The applicant has alleged that she was harassed during that examination. Though she reported the matter to the Principal and Invigilators narrating the whole incident, but she has not been able to show any documentary evidence to that effect. However, she stated that the respondents felt sorry for the said episode and requested her not to give complaint in black and white against the invigilator as he was a low paid government employee. Therefore, on their request, she did not lodge any complaint in writing.
It is not in dispute that the applicant was allowed to appear in PMET for the subsequent examination for the post of Temporary Constable (Exe.) after correcting her admit card. It is also not in dispute that when the admit card for written examination was not matching her image, she was asked to bring her photographs and after correcting the admit card, she was allowed to appear in the written examination. However, when the applicant’s earlier episode came to light that her name had been kept in the list of debarred candidates, the result of her subsequent exam was not processed.
It is noticed that the fact of debarment of the applicant’s candidature came to light for the first time when the result of subsequent examination had been declared vide Result dated 09.02.2018 wherein her name was shown to be included in the list of debarred candidates and, hence, her result was not processed. However, we also note it with concern that the action of debarring the applicant’s candidature for three years should have been taken after affording an opportunity for her to explain. In the absence of this, we are of the considered opinion that principles of natural justice have not been followed while taking such action.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned result dated 09.02.2018 is quashed and set aside to the extent it debars the applicant from appearing in examinations of the respondent. The respondents are hereby directed to declare the result of the applicant for the post of Temporary Constable (Exe.) if she is otherwise found to be eligible and suitable as per her rank in the merit list. In case she is to be offered appointment, the same shall be with prospective effect only.
The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The instant OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
No order as to costs.