Delhi HC imposes Rs 50,000 cost on DSSSB for delay in processing aspiring teacher’s case

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for the delay in processing the case of a woman, who was declared a successful candidate for the post of assistant teacher in a government school, on an erroneous assumption that she failed to submit documents despite two opportunities granted. The high court said the woman has been constrained to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as well as this court without any fault of hers and that the financial loss having been caused to her should be compensated in some measure.

“In the circumstances, instead of directing payment of back wages, especially because the petitioner has not joined the services till date, the court imposes costs of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioner by DSSSB, within a period of one month. The petitioner’s appointment letter too be issued within the same period,” a bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Swarna Kanta Sharma said.

Also Read | Maharashtra: Case against school headmistress, clerk for alleged misappropriation of funds

The woman petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) and appeared in the relevant recruitment examination on November 19, 2019, and was declared a successful candidate after securing 106 marks while the cut-off marks were 102. She was permitted to upload the requisite supporting documents apropos her candidature, on the website of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), however, she was unable to do so within the specified time because while travelling she had lost her bag containing the documents, the petition said.

The woman said she had lodged an FIR reporting the loss of her bag and the documents and applied for issuance of duplicate documents, which, upon receipt, she promptly uploaded on DSSSB's website. However, the plea said her candidature was rejected by DSSSB because the documents were ‘posted after the cut-off date’ and some error was also pointed out by the authorities relating to the date of declaration of her result of another exam as July 9, 2020, by State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), whereas the correct date of declaration of result was May 31, 2019. “Evidently, the error was because of inadvertence of SCERT, for which the petitioner suffered but cannot be blamed,” it said, adding that the woman approached the SCERT to remove the ambiguity in the letter relating to the date of declaration of result by SCERT, however, it went unanswered.

Document submission

Her request to the DSSSB to permit her to update the requisite documents on the e-dossier portal was not acceded to, the plea said, adding that the silence resulted in injustice to her. The counsel for DSSSB submitted that the woman’s e-dossier has been uploaded and she has been provisionally selected and her e-dossier has been sent to the Directorate of Education for appropriate corollary action. The court, while perusing a communication of DSSSB, said “there is a clear admission of error in the rejection of petitioner’s candidature on the assumption, indeed insistence, of DSSSB that the petitioner had already been given two opportunities to upload the requisite documents in the e-dossier and that she had failed to do so”.

“In the letter of April 1, 2022, DSSSB admits that the petitioner was not given any such opportunity earlier and the first time that she was given the opportunity was by virtue of the said letter. That being the position, the delay in the processing of the petitioner’s case on DSSSB’s own erroneous assumption, cannot be to the petitioner’s disadvantage. "Therefore, her not being paid remuneration for the period for which she would otherwise have been employed and earned salaries should be compensated appropriately. There can be no dispute that the petitioner should be accorded seniority in service as per the merit position,” it said.

Also Read | Odisha school sets up archive to celebrate contributions of alumni in freedom movement

The court noted that the DSSSB’s counsel submitted that the petitioner’s appointment will be from the date she is formally appointed after clearance of her medical examination and verification of other documents, and her seniority will be as per the merit position in the list of successful candidates, as per the procedure. “Be that as it may. The petitioner’s batchmates were given two opportunities to complete the formalities but she was not accorded any such opportunity. There has been a delay in the processing of her documents for no fault of hers. The fault lies in the erroneous, indeed, casual assumption that two opportunities had been granted to her too.

"The relevant records were not examined by DSSSB. There was a lack of diligence to the petitioner’s detriment. DSSSB’s assumption is negated by its aforesaid admission in the letter dated April 1, 2022. The financial loss having been caused to the petitioner should be compensated in some measure,” it said.