Aditi Kumari v. The Chairman Delhi Subordinate Sevices Selection Board And ORS.
$~29 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13012/2018 ADITI KUMARI ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr.
Shanumga Patro, Mr.Tarun Kumar, Mr.
Nikhil Patnaik and Ms.Ramya Bhat, Advs.
versus THE CHAIRMAN DELHI SUBORDINATE SEVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Ms.
Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr.
N.K.
Singh, Ms.Palak rohmetra and Ms. Aarushi Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 03.12.2018 CM APPL.-50490/2018 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 13012/2018 and CM APPL. 50489/2018 & 50491/2018 The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 14.10.2018 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA no. 3869/2018. By the impugned order, the said OA preferred by the petitioner had been rejected.
2.
The petitioner was a female candidate, who applied for the post of
TGT (Social Science) (Female) Post Code 138/17, in respect whereof, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Boad (DSSSB) issued an advertisement No.04/2017 and conducted examination. Similar recruitment was sought to be made by DSSSB for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male) Post Code 137/17 by the same advertisement. Whereas the written examination for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male) was conducted in offline mode, for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female), the DSSSB sought to conduct the examination through online mode.
The grievance of the petitioner primarily was that the adoption of different modes for holding written examinations for the male candidates on the one hand and female candidates on the other hand was discriminatory qua females candidates inasmuch as the format of the online examination was disadvantageous to them. In the said format, the candidates had to answer the questions in Part 'A' - which comprised of GK questions, before proceeding to Part 'B' - which comprised of subject knowledge questions and negative marking was also prevailing in the examination scheme.
Thus, female candidates, who may be strong in their subject knowledge, were put to disadvantage inasmuch as they perforce had to first attend the GK questions in Part 'A' and be subjected to negative marking before proceeding to answer the question in Part 'B' relating to the subject. However, in the offline mode, male candidates had the freedom to answer the questions of their choice without being subjected to such regime. 3.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the OA came to be heard before the Tribunal on 10.10.2018, the Tribunal made a prima facie observation that the conduct of the written examination for male and female candidates in two different modes amounted to gender discrimination which is impermissible in law. Consequently, the matter was
adjourned for the next date to enable the counsel for the respondent to take instructions. However, on 12.10.2018, the Bench that heard the matter did not assemble and the matter was placed before a different Bench on the same day. The substitute Bench heard the prayer for interim relief and reserved the matter. Since the online examination for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) was scheduled for 15.10.2018 (13.10.2018 and 14.10.2018 being Saturday and Sunday), the petitioner approached this Court by preferring a writ petition in an emergent situation. That writ petition was heard by this Court on 13.10.2018 and a direction was issued to the Tribunal to pronounce its order - interim or final before the conduct of examination on 15.10.2018 at 8.30 a.m.
The submission of the petitioner is that order of this Court was communicated to CAT and a cause-list was issued for Sunday (14.10.2018) intimating assembly of Bench comprising two learned Members. However, on Sunday, when the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal, only one learned Member namely Mr. V. Ajay Kumar was present in the Court. It is alleged that the said member, without hearing any submission alone pronounced the operative part of the order around 11.30 a.m. in his chamber, which was thereafter sent to the absentee Member at his residence for signatures. At this stage itself, we may take note of the clarification provided by the learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared on advance notice, that orders had been reserved on 12.10.
2018 by the alternative Bench and the impugned order had been pronounced by the same alternative Bench, who heard and reserved the matter. 4.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal had not even examined the submissions of the petitioner that online mode for conduct of examination is
discriminatory and onerous unlike the offline mode. Candidates taking online examination had to perforce attend the question in Part 'A' which also has negative marking before proceeding to Part 'B'. 5.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the present petition is completely meritless. As noticed above, separate sanctioned posts exist in respect of TGT (Social Science) (Male) Post Code 137/17 and TGT (Social Science) (Female) Post Code 138/17. The candidates for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Male) had not competed for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) and vice versa. Candidates appearing for the online examination for the same post were being subjected to the same terms.
Thus, there is no question of any discrimination against the petitioner, who is a female candidate for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female) since the male candidates were not even competing for the post of TGT (Social Science) (Female). The grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to the mechanism in which the online examination is undertaken, namely, that the candidates have to first answer the questions in Part 'A' and thereafter proceed to attempt the question in Part 'B' is also meritless. All female candidates who had taken the online examination were subjected to the same rigour. Thus, there is no discrimination between the female candidates.
To say that the petitioner should have been granted the same facility of attempting any question as she chooses has no merit since the same discipline binds all the female candidates.
issues.
6.
So far as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the availability of only one learned Member Mr. V. Ajay Kumar on 14.10.2018 is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the arguments had already been heard and reserved by the same Bench on 12.10.2018. Thus, there was no need for the Bench assembling again on Sunday (14.10.2018) to hear any further submission for formulating the order by the Members in a joint sitting. This Court while disposing of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2018 had directed the Tribunal to pronounce its order - interim or final, before the conduct of the examination on 15.10.2018 at 8.30 a.m. and the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal in compliance of the said directions. Consequently, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J DECEMBER 03, 2018 rc