GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. v. RAM' SATISH BAMORIA

1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned CAT, Principal Bench while ^ deciding O.A. No.3554/2011 preferred by the respondent.

2. Ms. Latika Chaudhry, counsel appearing for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the appointment of the respondent on the post of TGT (Sanskrit) was provisional subject to the fulfilment of necessary W.P.(C) 6709/2013 ^ r 2015:DHC:10931-DB qualifications and the same could be terminated at any stage without prior notice. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that as per the eligibility condition laid down in the advertisement the respondent should have qualified B.Ed, degree which is mandatory for appointment to the post of TGT as on the cut off date of29.10.2007 and the respondent indisputably had not qualified the said B.Ed, degree as onthe said cutoffdate. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has lost sight ofthe fact ofthe said mandatory eligibility condition laid down in the advertisement which was a pre-requisite to appoint the respondent to the post of TGT (Sanskrit). Counsel also submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2013 (10) Scale 42. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the respondent had never concealed or suppressed the fact of notpossessing the B.Ed, qualification as on the cut off date as the respondent in fact had disclosed in the application form thathe had appeared inthe B.Ed, annual examination which course he was undertaking fi"om the Jammu University andthe result of the same was awaited. The Counsel further submits that the respondent was under the bonafide impression that having appeared in the B.Ed, annual examination for which the result was awaited, he was eligibleto seek appointment to the said post. Counsel fiirther submits that in the show cause notice dated 13.09.2010 which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Tribunal intheO.A. preferred by the respondent, one ofthe challenge raised by the respondent was that in the said show cause notice the petitioners had wrongly taken a ground that some misrepresentation or concealment was made by the respondent atthe time ofsubmission ofhis application, while W.P.(C) 6709/2013 Page 2of[5] rno false information was given or misrepresentation or concealment was made by the respondent and he had correctly disclosed his educational qualification and also the fact that he appeared in the B.Ed, annual examination. Counsel further submits that the very premise of the show cause notice dated 13,09.2010 served by the petitioners upon the respondent was bad. Counsel also submits that in such circumstances this Court may at least set aside the show cause notice dated 13.09.2010. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision ofthis Court in W.P. (C ) NO. 4798/2012 titled as "Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & Ors. V. Ravi Prakash Meena" decided on 13.02.2013.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the advertisement published on 12.10.2007 in the Employment Newspaper, applications for appointment for filling up different posts of teachers in the Directorate of Education, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, the respondent had applied to |Seek appointment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit). The post code for this post was 153/07. It is not in dispute between the parties that one of the eligibility conditions laiddown for appointment to the saidpostwas that the candidate ought to possess the qualification of B.Ed, as on the cut off date, i.e., 29^ October, 2007. It is also not in dispute between the parties that as on'the said cut off date the respondent was not possessing the said qualification of B.Ed, and in fact as per the disclosure made by the respondent himself in his application he had stated that he had appeared in the B.Ed.; annual examination and awaiting his result. This fact of the respondent not possessing the requisite qualification was not taken note of by the petitioners and offer of appointment letter dated 23.02.2009 was issued to the respondent and consequently he joined on the said post. At the fF.P. (C) 6709/2013 ^^fS time when the said offer of appointment was made to the respondent, he filled a declaration form on 23.02.2009 and as per this declaration if at any stage it was found thatthe information fiimished bythe candidate turns out to be false or incomplete or the candidate was ineligible to be appointed to the said post then the appointment was liable to be cancelled/terminated automatically without any notice.

4. Considering thefact that therespondent did notfiilfil thecondition of qualifying the B.Ed, examination as on the cut off date of 29^ October, 2007, therefore, clearly the respondent was ineligible to be appointed to the said post of TGT (Sanskrit). However in the show cause notice dated 13.09.2010 served by the petitioners upon the respondent one ofthe ground gives an impression as ifsome false statement was made by the respondent to seek appointment to the said post ofTGT(Sanskrit), although in the notice there is also a clear reference to the respondent not possessing the requisite qualification ofB.Ed, as on the cut offdate. Itis an undeniable fact that the respondent in his application form had disclosed that he had appeared in the B.Ed, annual examination from Jammu University and the result of the said examination was awaited and therefore there was no misrepresentation or any kind of concealment on the part of the respondent. He had himself disclosed that as on the cut off date he was not possessing the requisite qualificati;on i.e. B.Ed, which was apre-requisite to seek appointment to the saidpost of TGT(Sanskrit).

5. Jn the above circumstances and taking into consideration the admissiori on the part of the respondent that he had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria of possessing the qualification of B.Ed., therefore, the termination ofthe respondent by the petitioners would be limited to the fF.P.{CJ 6709/2012 ^ aspect ofthe respondent not possessing the requisite qualification ofB.Ed, without attributing anything that would attach any kind ofstigma or which can prove adverse in his future endeavours and career.

6. With the above directions, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the above directions.

7. Petition stands disposed ofaccordingly.

FEBRUARY 25, 2015 km W.P.(C) 6709/2013 KAILASH GAMBHIR (JUDGE) ^MEHTA (JUDGE) Page 5 of[5]