Visually Impaired DDA Applicant Retains Candidature As Delhi HC Finds Her Scribe Was One Educational Step Below

In brief

The question

Whether the scribe’s educational qualification had to be assessed on the application closing date or on the date the candidate undertook the examination

The court held

The Court held that Kumari’s scribe was not disqualified and found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment.

It also directed

It affirmed that judgment in its entirety and dismissed DDA’s writ petition in limine.

01Facts

Khushbu Kumari, who is visually impaired, applied for appointment as Assistant Section Officer with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–14, 17–18

The recruitment notice permitted a candidate to use a scribe whose educational qualification was one step below the candidate’s.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–14, 17–18

DDA cancelled her candidature, reasoning that she and her scribe were both graduates.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–14, 17–18

On the application closing date, however, Kumari was a graduate and her scribe had completed intermediate education; by the examination dates, Kumari was a postgraduate and her scribe was a graduate.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–14, 17–18

The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the cancellation, and DDA challenged that decision under Article 226.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–14, 17–18

02Issues

i.Whether the scribe’s educational qualification had to be assessed on the application closing date or on the date the candidate undertook the examination

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 11, 17–20

ii.Whether Kumari’s scribe was disqualified under the recruitment notice, making cancellation of her candidature lawful

pp. 3–6 · ¶ 9–10, 18–21

03Law Applied

The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities’ Office Memorandum dated 29 August 2018 provides for a scribe for visually impaired candidates and requires the scribe to be one educational step below the candidate.

p. 3 · ¶ 7–8

Clause 2.11.6 of the recruitment notice similarly requires an own scribe’s qualification to be one step below that of the candidate “taking examination.”

p. 4 · ¶ 11

Clause 3.4 requires candidates to meet the eligibility criteria for the post by the application closing date; it concerns the candidate’s eligibility, not the scribe’s qualification.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 16, 19

The Court considered the challenge under Article 226.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Recruitment Notice (alias, unresolved) Section 2Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court read Clause 2.11.6 as indicating that the comparison of qualifications should ordinarily be made on the examination date, because it refers to the candidate “taking examination.”

p. 6 · ¶ 19

Clause 3.4 did not alter that interpretation, as it addressed the candidate’s eligibility for the post rather than the scribe’s qualification.

p. 6 · ¶ 19

In any event, the scribe was one educational step below Kumari both on the application closing date and on each examination date.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 18–21

The stated ground for cancelling her candidature was therefore factually incorrect, and the Tribunal had correctly set aside the cancellation.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 18–21