Full Text
Date of hearing and Order: 09.04.2015
JASWANT SINGH YADAV
Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Through: Ms.Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Ms.Sara Ansari and
Ms.Vanessa Singh, Advocates.
Mr.Manoj R.Sinha, Advocate for R-3/UGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LS.MEHTA
KAILASH GAMBHIR. J (ORAL)
ORDER
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the learned CAT.
2. Ms.Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi submits that the present petitioner Jaswant Singh had applied to seek appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) primarily on the W.P.(C) 1865/2014 Page 1 of[5] 2015:DHC:10996-DB w basis ofthe post graduation qualification which he had obtained and that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as the said PG level qualification was obtained by the petitioner in the year 2009 after the last date of application in 2007 against the advertisement advertised in 2007.
3. Mr.Bhardwaj, counsel representing the petitioner, on the other hand submits that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria not only because he had qualified post graduation (M.A in Hindi) in the year 2009 but also because he had studied Hindi as an additional subject in 2004 for which he was granted additional degree in B.A.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. Indisputably, the petitioner, who was seeking appointment on the post of TGT (Hindi) against Post Code 151/07, did not fulfil the basic criteria of studying Hindi as elective subject in all years at degree level and he obtained the post graduation degree (M.A.) in 2009 i.e. after the last date of applications in the year 2007.
6. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Sachin Gupta etc. and other connected writ petitions decided by the Division Bench of this Court on W.P.(C) 1865/2014 - Page[2] of[5] V'' \ 07.08.2013, relevant portion ofwhich is reproduced as under:-
32. The study ofvarious disciplines ofeducation i.e. subjects taught is broadly classified into three categories i.e. (i) core subjects, (ii) elective subjects and (Hi) mandatory subjects. The difference in the three is as under: (a) Core Subjects: The student shall complete successfully allthe core subjectsprescribedfor the program to become eligibleforthe award of Degree. Such courses together with their grades and credits earned should be included in the Grade Card issued by the College at the end ofeach semester. (b) Elective Subjects: The student shall further complete successfully the total credit equivalent of the elective subjects offered in the program to become eligiblefor the award of the Degree. The student can choose the subject of his/her interest from among the available credits.
(c) Mandatory Subjects: The student shall completesuccessfully all the mandatory courses prescribe from time to time by the college. These subjects however do not carry any credits.
33. Aforesaid is the classification which can befound across the board for all universities in India. We may clarify that in some universities mandatory subjects are referred to as subsidiary subjects. The difference in the three is that the marks awarded for the core and elective subjects are reckonedfor the purposes of the grade awarded but notfor mandatory or subsidiary subjects.
7. This court dealt with the expression "elective subject" in para 30 of the aforecited judgment, as under: "30. On March 13, 2010 a corrigendum was issued by the Government defining the expression 'elective subject' occurring in the Recruitment Rules, which corrigendum was superseded by another corrigendum W.P.(C) 1865/2014 Page 3 of[5] issued onMarch 30, 2010. As per corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 the expression 'elective subject' occurring in the Recruitment Rules means that 'The candidate should have studied the subject concernedas mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different universities."
8. The facts of the case of Neelam Rana in W.P (C) No. 575/2013, which is a part of batch of said writ petitions, and are akin to the facts of the present case are: "10. In the year 2001, the respondent of W.P.(C) No.575/2013; Neelam Rana, obtained a B.Sc. degree from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and had not studied English as a subject in any of the three years of the graduation course. Thereafter, Neelam Rana obtained a M.A. (English) degree from the same University in the year 2006 after undergoing two years study.
9. The court observed as follows: "24. Videjudgment dated February 03, 2012 the Tribunal allowed the application filed by Neelam Rana on the ground that since she has obtained M.A. (English), a qualification which is higher than the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (English,) Neelam Rana should be deemed to have satisfied the eligibility condition prescribedfor appointment to the post of T.G.T. (English).
47. The controversy pertaining to Neelam Rana is not in the context of what would be an elective subject studied during Graduation. Admittedly Neelam Rana seeks appointment as T.G.T. English, a subject which she never studied in her Graduation course which we find was B.Sc. (Botany) but she fights the battle on the strength of W.P.(C) 1865/2014 Page 4 of[5] having obtained a Post Graduate Degree in English i.e. M.A. (English)."
10. In the light of the aforesaid admitted position that the petitioner did not fulfil the basic criteria of studying Hindi as elective subject in all years at degree level and that he obtained the post graduation degree (M.A.) in 2009 i.e. after the last date of applications in the year 2007, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
APRIL 09, 2015 'dc' W.P.(C) 1865/2014 KAILASHCAMBHIR (JUDGE) CHTA (JUDGE) Page 5 of[5] $-2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 in + W.P.(01865/2014 Date of decision: 2"** March, 2016 JASWANT SINGH YADAV..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Varun Chandiok and Mr. Asfar, Advs.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC for GNCTD/R-1&2 along with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Office Superintendant, Directorate ofEducation. Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. for R-3/UGC. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA.lUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL. J. Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 th
1. The petitioner has sought review of the judgment dated 9 April; 2015 whereby his writ petition, assailing the order dated 9^,th August, 2012 in O.A.No.2858/2011 and review order dated 30 November, 2012 in R.A.No.325/2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, was rejected. Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 in W.P.(C)No. 1865/2014 Page I of[7] a
2. The review petition is premised on the order dated 18^'' September, 2015 passed in Review Pet.No.346/2015 in W.P.(C)No.7309/2013, Baboo Lai Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors. wherein the reliefwas granted to Shri Baboo Lai Sharma, similarly placed as the petitioner. It appears that the offer of appointment th dated 16 January, 2009 issued by the respondent no.l to the appellant for appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the government school in the NCI of Delhi administered by respondent no.l, was withdrawn for the reason that the petitioner's qualification of M.A. (Hindi) was an additional qualification. This decision of the respondent no.l was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment dated August, 2012. The review thereofwas also rejected on 30^*^ November, 2012. The petitioner's challenge by way of W.P.(C)No.1865/2014 was rejected by us on the 9^ ofApril 2015.
3. Shri Baboo Lai Sharma, petitioner in Review Pet.No.346/2015, similarly placed as the petitioner in the present case, also assailed the order of the respondent no.l before the Central Administrative Tribunal which rejected his claim as well for the same reasons. We may note that Baboolal Sharma's case was concerned with the post of TGT (Sanskrit). Thereafter, his W.P.(C)No.7309/2013 was also rejected on 9^*^ April, 2015. However, his review petition bearing Review Pet.No.346/2015 has been allowed by us on 18^^ September, 2015 holding as follows: "10. Our attention is drawn to the consideration of this very aspect by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 in W.P.(C)No. 1865/2014 Page 2 of? judgment dated 7^^ August, 2013 in Sachin Gupta which is in the following terms:
11. We also find that the Division Bench has Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 in W.P.(C)No.1865/2014 Page 3of[7] considered the teaching ability of a person who has studied the concerned language at the graduate as well as atthe post-graduate level in the following terms:
-sj obtained a Post G graduate degree in English language." However, on 9"" April, 2015, the attention ofthis court was drawn only to paras 30 and 32 of Sachin Gupta and nottothe above findings.
XXX XXX XXX
14. Our attention is also drawn to the notification issued by the Government of NOT of Delhi dated 17^*^ January. 1994 regarding the method of recruitment and qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) in the Directorate of Education of the Government. Amongst the amendments notified by the concerned government, so far as the qualifications C required for direct recruitment are concerned, the respondents have notified the following eligibility qualifications:• "(For appointment as Hindi Teachers only) Sahitya RattanofHindiSahitya Sammellan Prayag having secured atleast 45 per cent marks in aggregate with English in Matriculation provided further that the requirement as to the minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate shall be relaxable in the case of fa) candidate who possesses a Post Graduate Qualification in MIL Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 in W.P.(QNo.1865/2014 Page 4of? concerned from a recognised University (b) candidates belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically handicapped candidates." (Emphasis by us)
15. As a result, for a candidate possessing a post graduate qualification in MIL (Modem Indian Language), a minimum requirement of 45% marks in aggregate at the graduate level is relaxable.
XXX XXX XXX
17. In view of the above discussion, we find that the relevant law on the subject as well as binding notification of the Govemment of NCTof Delhi was not placed before the Division Bench ofthis court, resulting in an error-apparent on the face ofthe record.
18. The prayer made in the review petition is justified and admitted by the respondent. The findings of the Division Bench ofthis court in para 10 ofthe judgment dated 9^'' April, 2015 are hereby recalled. It is held that the petitioner fulfilled the basic eligibility criteria laid down in the recmitment mles and notified in the advertisement are possessed the required educational qualifications. The petitioner was, therefore, validly appointed and has to be permitted to join at a place of posting to be effected bythe respondent no.1.
19. The claim of the petitioner in the petition before the tribunal as per the Original Application seeking appointment to the post of TOT (Sanskrit) is upheld with the exception that he shall not be entitled to back wages but would be entitled to all consequential benefits such as seniority as per his merit position in the select panel and notional pay fixation with reference to the date of hisjoining being treated as the one on which the person immediately junior tothem joined duty."
4. It is not disputed that avalid degree recognised by the UGC has been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner possesses the Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 in W.P.(C)No.1865/2014 Page 5of? 7-% post-graduate degree of M.A.(Hindi) and therefore, possessed the essential qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi) on the date the appointment letter was issued to him.
5. In view of the above, as in the case of Baboolal Sharma, the relevant law on the subject as well as binding notification of the Government of NCT of Delhi was not placed before us when we passed the order dated 9'^ April, 2015 resulting in the error apparent on the face of the record. As such, the prayermade in the review petition is justified and is also duly admitted by the respondent before us.
6. As a result, the findings of this court in para 10 of the judgment dated 9^"^ April, 2015 are hereby recalled. It is held that the petitioner fulfilled the basic eligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules and are notified in the advertisement, possessing the required educational qualification. Therefore, the offer of appointment was validly issued to the petitioner and he has to be permitted to join the place of posting to be effected by respondent no.l.
7. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner in the petition before the Tribunal as per the O.A.No.2858/2011 seeking appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) is upheld with the exception that he shall not be entitled to back wages but would be entitled to all consequential benefits such as seniority as per his merit position in the select panel and notional pay fixation with reference to the date of his joining being treated as the one on which theperson immediately junior to them joined duty. Rev.Pet.No.483/2015 in W.P.(C)No. 1865/2014 Page6of[7] a 5^- The respondents shall pass the orders in terms of the above within aperiod ofsix weeks from today. This review petition is allowed in the above terms. Dasti to parties.