ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Petitioner on the basis of her B.Ed. qualifications, is seeking to get appointment as Primary Teacher with respondent No.1/MCD. The petitioner had originally passed her B.Ed.exam securing 478/800 marks. However she had applied for improvement in respect of one of the papers i.e. English teaching. By virtue of result of improvement examination, her marks were increased by 9 marks thereby she secured 487/800 marks. She does not get the appointment on the basis of her original marks but if her improved marks are taken into consideration, she would get the job of Primary Teacher. Whether she is entitled to rely upon the marks as a result of improved examination is the question which is to be determined in the present case. The facts on the basis of which this question arises for determination are important and therefore may be stated first. On July 16, 1996 an advertisement appeared in the ‘Employment News’ of the same date through which the respondent No.2 acting on behalf of the respondent No. 1 invited applications from ‘Indian citizens’ for the posts of ‘Primary and Nursery Teachers’. Approximate vacancies in the General/Tamil category were indicated to be around 3000 for Primary Teacher and 65 for Primary Teacher(Urdu). The completed applications were to reach the respondent No. 2 before July 31, 1996. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications as required by the said advertisement dated July 16, 1996. The petitioner belongs to the general category of candidates. Being entitled to be considered for the posts as advertised by the respondents as possessing the requisite qualifications, the petitioner applied in the prescribed Bio-Data format to the respondents within the stipulated time. It is important to note that the petitioner had applied for the post on 23.7.1996 and sent the application by way of registered post on that date. In the application, she had submitted that in B.Ed. she secured 478/800 marks i.e. the marks which she had obtained before improvement. Just after one day of submission of this application, petitioner received her result of improvement examination i.e. on 24.7.1996 as per which she had now secured 487/800 marks. Last date for submission of the application for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher was still far away which was 31.7.1996. Upto this stage, the facts are not disputed.
2. However petitioner alleges that after receiving improved result of her B.Ed. Examination, she went to the office of respondent on 26.7.1996 with the copy of the improved result but the officer of the respondent refused to accept the said marksheet on the plea that since thousands of applications had been received by the respondents, it would be difficult to find out the application of the petitioner. Therefore she sent the same under postal certificate(UPC) to the respondent on 26.7.1996 itself. Thereafter she received communication from respondent No.2 on 14.11.1996 intimating her application No.30774 for future reference. After receipt of the said communication, she sent duly attested photocopy of her regular marksheet which included marks after improvement, to the respondent by registered pos on 15.11.1996.
3. Thereafter respondent No.2 on the basis of particular criteria adopted by it for awarding points to different candidates who applied for the post, for their 10th, 12th & B.Ed./JBT examination, compiled the results and those candidates who had secured upto minimum 72 points and born on or before 30.11.1969 were selected. Although petitioner also secured 72 points but as she was born on 13.7.1976 i.e. after 30.11.1969 she could not be selected. It may be mentioned that while awarding 72 points to the petitioner, her original result of B.Ed. i.e. before improvement wherein she had secured 478/800 marks, was taken into consideration. Had the improved result of the petitioner in B.Ed i.e. 487/800 been taken into consideration, she would have secured 75 points and thus would have got the appointment.
4. The version of MCD because of which it acted on the original marksheet of B.Ed. of the petitioner is as under :
5. Petitioner had sent her application on 23.7.1996 alongwith marksheet of B.Ed.examination as per which she had secured 478/800 marks. copy of the application form as submitted by the petitioner as well as the marksheet submitted alongwith application showed her marks in B.Ed. as 478/800. According to the respondents, petitioner never submitted her revised B.Ed. marksheet after improvement in the results. Her allegation that she visited office on 24.7.1996 with marksheet after the improvement is denied. It is also denied that she had sent this marksheet by UPC on 26.7.1996 and respondents state that it is an afterthought story created by her as she had sent all her letters through registered post only and she could have sent this letter also by registered post. It shows that she had not sent this letter and UPC is made to create false evidence. It is also submitted that even if it is presumed that on 24.7.1996, officials of MCD refused to take her marksheet of revised result, she could have again applied for the post of Primary Teacher as the last date to move the application was 31.7.1996 In these circumstances, according to respondents, they rightly acted on the basis of applications submitted by the petitioner herself as per which she had rightly been given the grading of 72 and as per these gradings, she had not been able to make her mark, her date of birth being 13.4.1976.
6. There appears to be some flaw in the story put forth by the petitioner which creates doubt in the narrations made by her in the petition inasmuch as ;
(a) if she had met the officials of MCD i.e. 24.7.1996 with revised marksheet and officials of the respondents had refused to take the same as alleged by her, she did not meet any higher official or write any letter to this effect.
(b) She had allegedly sent her marksheet on 26.7.1996 by UPC. Although the original application submitted by her was sent by registered post, it is stated by the respondents that all other communications are sent by her by registered post then why this important document which could have made all the difference was allegedly sent by UPC? It lends credence to the allegation of the respondents that this marksheet was not all sent and back date UPC is fabricated.
7. The petitioner could apply for the post again if the respondents had refused to accept the revised marksheet on 24.7.1996, as the date of making the application had not yet expired which was 31.7.1996. Petitioner should have been careful enough not to miss the chance of making another application. It is thus clear that petitioner was not vigilant and careful.
8. In any case whether the petitioner visited respondents’ office on 24.7.1996 or sent revised marksheet on 26.7.1996 raises disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into these writ proceedings. More so the assessment of circumstances shows that the version of the petitioner is not worth giving any credence. Therefore the present case is to be examined on the basis as if the application dated 23.7.1996 in which petitioner stated her B.Ed.marks to be 478/800 supported by original marksheet only, was submitted. On the basis of these facts, it was but natural and proper for the respondents to act on the basis of petitioner’s marks as 478/800 in B.Ed. and not 487/800. On this basis her grading comes to 72 as admitted by the petitioner also. Respondents have mentioned that the candidates with 72 grading and born on or before 30.11.1969 only are given the appointment. Presumably, there were many candidates who obtained grading of 72 and the vacancies got filled up by such persons with 72 grading could not be accommodated keeping in view number of posts and therefore those who were senior in age i.e. born on or before 30.11.1969 could only be accommodated. The petitioner has thus missed the bus. May be the non-appointment of the petitioner, even when she improved her academic result, may act as harsh to her but for this, it is the petitioner’s carelessness and/or inaction which
is to be blamed. Had she been vigilant enough to place on record the revised marksheet of improved result or make another application for the post in question before 31.7.1996 on the basis of revised marksheet, she would have got the desired result. As far as respondents are concerned, in the absence of revised marksheet submitted to them, they had no option to act on the basis of result mentioned in the application submitted by petitioner herself. Therefore one may have sympathies with the petitioner but it is difficult to help her in the facts and circumstances of this case where the consequences are her own creation.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. No orders as to costs.