Nandkishore Subhash Dhekane and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.

1. By way of this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in the Original Application NO. 3702/2023 and have sought the following reliefs: “(a) set aside Impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in Original Application No. 3702 of 2023; and /or (b) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated 14.06.2023 for replacing FCSA with TGT (Computer Science) imposing additional conditions to deny the appointment to the petitioners, and further direct the respondents to relax/remove the essential qualification of CTET and B.Ed. Degree from the recruitment Rules of TGT (Computer Science) for the Petitioner who have been working as FCSA for over a decade; and/or

(c) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants with all consequential benefits from the date of respective appointment for all practical purpose as FCSA / TGT (Computer Science)/TGTSUPW, or on any post equivalent to the work performed by the Petitioners for 15-20 years; and/or

(d) any other relief/ order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the Petitioner and against the respondents.”

2. On advance notice, learned counsel for respondents entered appearance through counsel and at request of both sides, final arguments were heard today itself.

3. The petitioners, being contractual employees of Navodya Vidyalya Samiti i.e. respondent no. 2 claimed regularization on the post of Faculty Cum System Administrator (FCSA) or TGT (Computer Science) on the basis of long period of their continuous services and nature of duties performed by them, but the Original Application No. 3702/2023 filed by them was dismissed by the learned Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, by way of the judgment and order, impugned in this writ action.

4. According to petitioners, for achieving the goal of computer education in the institutions run by respondent no. 2, they were engaged on contractual basis as FCSA originally for a period of one year in terms of the decision taken by the committee of the respondent no. 2 on 09.01.2001 and the said contractual engagement has been continuing by way of periodic extensions. The nature of duties assigned to the petitioners were largely in the form of training the teachers already employed in the institutions run by respondent no. 2 so that subsequently those teachers would start imparting computer education to the students. In addition, the petitioners were also to look after maintenance of hardware and software, installed by the said institutions. Further according to petitioners, with the intention to deny them benefits of regularization, the respondents sanctioned 649 posts of TGT (Computer Science) in the meeting dated 10.04.2023 of the Executive Committee of respondent no. 2, which decision was approved by the Board. Consequently vide notification dated 14.06.2023, the Recruitment Rules were amended, thereby changing the qualification and nomenclature of FCSA so that the petitioners become ineligible to be recruited/absorbed as TGT (Computer Science). The petitioners claim that they have been working as FCSA since the year 2001 and now they deserve to be regularized in the said post, but the respondents intend to deprive the petitioners of this right, despite their unblemished service record.

5. During arguments, learned counsel for petitioners took us through above matrix and contended that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued on behalf of petitioners that in view of continuous service of petitioners for past more than 20 years, they have a right to be regularized in the post of FCSA and cannot be deprived by the respondents who have out of vengeance decided to discontinue FCSAs and advertised 649 vacancies of TGT (Computer Science). Learned counsel for petitioners also argued that earlier, for the post of FCSAs, the qualification of B.Ed. was only desirable and not mandatory while now for the post of TGT (Computer Science), the said qualification has been made mandatory, because of which the petitioners are deprived of participating in the recruitment process.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order and contended that the present writ petition is completely devoid of merits. It was argued that the petitioners cannot be allowed to claim regularization as a matter of right solely on the basis of the long period of continuous service as FCSAs.

7. In view of above backdrop, two issues were agitated before this court, namely, whether merely on the basis of long period of continuous service, the petitioners can rightfully claim regularization in the post of FCSA and/or TGT (Computer Science), and whether the respondents can be directed to alter the eligibility conditions for the post of TGT (Computer Science) by making the qualification of B.Ed. as only desirable instead of essential. Before the learned Tribunal also, the petitioners in their Original Application sought only these two reliefs.

8. To begin with, we are of the considered view that the petitioners, engaged on contract basis to work as FCSA cannot seek that the eligibility conditions for the post of TGT (Computer Science) be tweaked, thereby making the B.Ed. qualification as only desirable and not essential. It is the absolute prerogative of the respondents to decide in their wisdom as to what would be in best interest of the students and the institution. It is nobody’s case that the petitioners are working as teachers, much less as TGT (Computer Science). If the respondents are of the view that the TGT (Computer Science) teachers to be recruited by them must have B.Ed. qualification in the interest of students and institution, they cannot be faulted with simply because the eligibility conditions for the post of FCSA were that B.Ed. qualification was only desirable and not essential. As mentioned above, the purpose of FCSA was of much larger spectrum, with main emphasis to train the teachers in computer subject so that the teachers could further impart computer training to the students, and in addition, FCSA were also to deal with installation and maintenance of hardware-software. Moreover, there is no dispute that the Recruitment Rules for the post of TGT (Computer Science) are applicable universally across the board, so several persons already working as FCSA stood benefited and had no reason to litigate.

9. There is another aspect. The issue of removing the B.Ed. qualification as essential qualification from Recruitment Rules of TGT (Computer Science) already stands adjudicated upon in the earlier round of litigation. In the originally filed Original Application the petitioners claimed the above mentioned two reliefs out of which the learned Tribunal dealt with only the first relief, which was qua amendment sought the Recruitment Rules for the post of TGT (Computer Science). So, the coordinate bench of this court remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal with directions to consider and adjudicate upon the relief of regularization as well. The coordinate bench of this court while disposing of the earlier Writ Petition bearing no.3862/2024 vide order dated 15.03.2024 specifically held that there is absolutely no reason to differ with the view of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the petitioners working on the post of FCSA cannot claim amendment of Recruitment Rules pertaining to the different post i.e., TGT (Computer Science).

10. Coming to the claim of petitioners for their regularization in the post of FCSA, admittedly, no permanent post of FCSA has been created by the respondents and for the purposes of imparting computer education to the students, the process for recruitment of TGT (Computer Science) has commenced. As mentioned above, the petitioners before this court are not eligible for recruitment as TGT (Computer Science) because they do not possess the essential qualification of B.Ed.

11. In view of above legal position, as elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 332, claim of the petitioners for regularization as FCSA has to be examined on the basis of not just their long continuous service as FCSA but also on the basis of nature of duties being performed by them in comparison with the teachers working as TGT as well as on the basis of the issue as to whether the selection process through a regular recruitment would constitute a substantive departure from temporary and scheme specific nature. Solely on the basis of long period of continuous service, petitioners cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.

12. Admittedly, the petitioners were not appointed as FCSA against any substantive/regular post. Also admittedly, the selection process adopted by the respondents is not a mirror image to that of the process adopted for regular appointments. There is also no dispute that only a part of the duties being performed by the petitioners are similar to the regular employees working as TGT (Computer Science); but overall, the duties performed by FCSAs are not purely academic in nature and that being so, they cannot claim a right of regularization over the post of TGT (Computer Science) which is purely academic in nature. There cannot be any parity between TGT (Computer Science) which is purely academic post and FCSA, which is a technical job.

13. In view of above discussion, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the applications are disposed of.