The Delhi High Court recently ruled against a candidate who challenged the rejection of her application for the Welfare Officer/Probation Officer/Prison Welfare Officer post. The court found that the petitioner had submitted two separate applications with different registration numbers and phone numbers, leading to her disqualification.

Case Background

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) had released an advertisement for the recruitment of Welfare Officers. The petitioner, Pragya Singh, applied for the position but later found her name on the rejection list. DSSSB stated that she had failed to upload the necessary e-dossier documents within the specified time (January 28 to February 11, 2020).

Read Also:- Delhi High Court Emphasizes Strict Enforcement of Minimum Sentence Under Wildlife Protection Act

Disputing this, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that she had appeared for the exam on November 24, 2019, but was falsely marked absent. She also claimed that DSSSB had not provided her with the necessary link to upload documents. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, her application was officially rejected on March 6, 2020.

Key Arguments by the Petitioner:

• She appeared for the exam but was wrongly marked absent in the results released on January 23, 2020.
• She could not upload her documents due to DSSSB's mistake in not activating the link for her.
• She had scored 176.75 marks, exceeding the cut-off, yet her candidature was unfairly rejected.
• She was unaware of any second application made under a different registration number and phone number.

DSSSB presented evidence showing that:

• The petitioner had applied twice using different registration numbers and phone numbers.
• Both applications contained identical personal details, including name, address, and signatures, except for the phone number and email ID.
• The petitioner had appeared under one registration number but checked her result under another, leading to the confusion.
• The link to upload documents was sent to the registered mobile number associated with her valid application, but she did not access it.

Findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

The Tribunal dismissed her plea, citing:

• The presence of two separate applications, indicating a possible attempt to manipulate the system.
• The petitioner’s denial of the second application despite clear evidence of its submission by her.
• Her failure to raise objections earlier or provide any supporting evidence proving that DSSSB was at fault.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, she approached the Delhi High Court.

High Court's Verdict

The court carefully examined the evidence and ruled that the petitioner had indeed submitted two applications.

"We find, to our discomfiture, that the petitioner has, by economizing the truth, taken up the time of the Tribunal and this Court, canvassing a relief to which she is not entitled."

The court noted discrepancies in her statements. Initially, she claimed to have submitted only one application, but records showed two applications with slightly different details.

Read Also:- Delhi High Court Orders Demolition of Illegal Slums on Yamuna Floodplains for Environmental Protection

The court also observed that the second application, which she disowned, contained the correct details about her Master's Degree from IGNOU. This contradicted her claim that the second application was fraudulent.

"The petitioner concealed her Master's Degree from IGNOU before the Tribunal and the Court, creating a misleading narrative."

The bench expressed disappointment that the petitioner had tried to deceive both the Tribunal and the High Court. However, considering her young age and future career, the court refrained from imposing costs.

"While we acknowledge that the petitioner has her whole career ahead, we cannot overlook the fact that she has led both the Tribunal and this Court astray with incorrect statements."

Case Title: PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS

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)