Making Two Applications For One Recruitment Examination, Concealing One, Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a Petition whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of a notice by which her candidature was rejected. The Bench held that since the Petitioner had filed two application forms and had also concealed her educational qualifications before the Tribunal as well as the Court, she...
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a Petition whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of a notice by which her candidature was rejected. The Bench held that since the Petitioner had filed two application forms and had also concealed her educational qualifications before the Tribunal as well as the Court, she would not be entitled to any sort of relief.
Background
The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Respondent) issued an advertisement for the post of Welfare Officer/Probation Officer/Prison Welfare Officer. The Petitioner applied but her candidature was rejected because as per the Respondents, she had not uploaded the e-dossier containing the requisite documents which was to be submitted between 28 January 2020 and 11 February 2020. The Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that she appeared in the written examination on 24 November 2019, however, as per a notice dated 23 January 2020, it was stated that she had not appeared in the said exam (as per the Roll Number she claimed belonged to her). Since the link to e-dossier was activated only for provisionally shortlisted candidates, it was allegedly not sent to her. The Petitioner further contended before the Tribunal that she had approached the DSSSB to enquire about the same but there was no assistance provided by them. On 17 February 2020, the Petitioner approached the Public Grievance Monitoring System to address her grievances. On 6th March 2020, the DSSSB issued a Rejection Notice against the Petitioner's Roll Number. The Notice mentioned that the Petitioner's candidature was rejected due to the failure to upload her e-dossier during the scheduled period.
Subsequently, the Petitioner received a response from the Public Grievance Monitoring System informing her that she had scored 176.75 marks in the written examination which was more than the cut-off marks for the examination.
The Petitioner sough quashing of the Rejection Notice dated 6 March 2020 allowing her to upload her documents in e-dossier format and be permitted to take part in the further selection process.
On the other hand, the DSSSB contended that the Petitioner had applied for the examination under two registration numbers with two phone numbers and both the application forms had the photograph of the Petitioner attached, same signatures as well as thumb impressions. The Petitioner had appeared under one of the registration numbers, however, she had checked the result in the other one, against which it was correctly stated that no one had appeared in the examination. The link to upload her documents in e-dossier form was provided against the Registration Number under which the Petitioner had appeared and scored 176.75 marks, however, the same could not be accessed by her as it was sent to a different phone number which did not belong to the Petitioner but was mentioned in the application.
The Petitioner claimed that she had no information about the phone number under which the second application was allegedly submitted and that it wasn't hers. It was stated that the phone number belonged to some person the Petitioner did not know.
The Tribunal directed an official of the Respondents to assist in the matter while also producing the relevant record required to remove the doubts regarding the issue. The Officer explained the system of filling online application leading to the generation of the online registration and roll number and clarified that the Petitioner was informed about her result on the mobile number recorded in the application form and the same number was not hers but of some other person, however, it was a part of the application where the details except for the email ID and the phone number belonged to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Respondents could not be held accountable for the same as they had followed the procedure as it was.
The Petition was dismissed stating that there were two sets of application forms, two registration numbers, two admit cards of the same applicant having similarities in the details and thus the Petitioner could not be favoured.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court
Findings of the Court
The Court dealt with the aspect of whether the petitioner submitted one application form or two. The Bench observed that if she had submitted two forms, no relief could be sought in such case. After going through the details of the case and the relevant record, the Court held that the Petitioner submitted both the applications under different phone numbers. It was held that assumably the Petitioner filed two applications because in the first one she had entered her Masters's degree wrongly. As per the second application which as per the Petitioner did not belong to her, she held a Masters' Degree from IGNOU, Delhi which was the accurate information. The Court observed that although the Petitioner claimed to be ignorant about the second application, it was evident that the details entered in the same were correct in connection with the Petitioner. Moreover, the second application also contained the correct Roll Number and the Petitioner's correct educational qualifications. The only thing that remained different in the second application was the email ID and the phone number.
Holding that such facts mitigated the credibility of the Petitioner's contentions, the Bench concluded that the Petitioner appeared in the examination using the Roll Number generated from the second application, however, the phone number and email ID attached to the application belonged to someone else. Furthermore, the Petitioner concealed having obtained her Masters' Degree from IGNOU before the Tribunal and the Court so that the Court remained clueless about the Second application where it was clearly mentioned that the Petitioner had obtained her Masters' Degree from IGNOU, the Court held, while also concluding that both the applications were filed by the Petitioner.
The Court while taking the future career of the petitioner into consideration dismissed the Petition with no costs. The Bench expressed disappointment over how the Petitioner tried to deceive the Tribunal as well as the High Court, however, considering that the Petitioner was a young lady with her life ahead of her, the Court refrained from making any further observations.
Case Title: PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, Mr. Shailender Salaria, Mr. Abhisumat Gupta and Mr. Arun Bhattacharya, Advs
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC along with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, and Mr. Hitanshu Mishra, Advs. with Mr. Sachin Varun (System Analyst)
