Anuj & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No. 19000/2021, CM No. 19242/2021

2. The prayer made in the captioned applications is to grant exemption from filing attested copies of the affidavit(s) in support of the accompanying writ petition and interlocutory applications.

2.1. The captioned applications are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to place on record the duly sworn/notarised/affirmed affidavit(s), within three days of this court resuming its normal and usual work pattern, notwithstanding the order passed in the main matter. W.P.(C) 6006/2021, CM No. 19241/2021

3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.06.2021, 2021:DHC:2337-DB passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal) in OA No.1141/2021. 3.[1] The backdrop in which the instant writ petition has been filed is as follows: - 3.[2] The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) published a vacancy notice on 12.05.2021 for the purpose of selecting candidates qua various posts including Trained Graduate Teacher(s) (TGTs) for English, Maths & Social Science. 3.[3] The essential qualifications prescribed, for applying for the post of TGT, inter alia, required the candidates, admittedly, to have qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET).

3.4. It is argued, on behalf of the petitioners, that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), which conducts the CTET examination, has not conducted the exam for over a year and a half.

3.5. According to Ms. Mukherjee, the CTET examination, which the CBSE intended to conduct in January 2021, has been postponed to a tentative date in December 2021.

3.6. Ms. Mukherjee says that CBSE’s failure to hold the CTET exam has marred the petitioners’ chance in applying for post advertised by the DSSSB.

3.7. It is Ms. Mukherjee’s contention that, the petitioners should be permitted to sit in examination(s), qua the aforementioned posts, with a caveat that if they succeed, their appointment would be subject to the petitioners clearing CTET exam.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents, submits that, there can be no relaxation concerning essential qualification. In support of her contention, Ms. Ahlawat relies upon the following judgments: -

1. Apoorva Dabas Vs GNCTD & Ors, WPC No. 3621 of 2019, decided on 10.04.2019.

2. Annu & Ors Vs.

3. Puran Singh Rana & Ors Vs GNCTD & Ors, WPC No. 13802 of 2018 decided on 20.12.2018.

4. GNCTD & Ors Vs Pradeep Kumar reported in (2019) 10 SCC

120.

5. GNCTD & Ors. Vs Anita Kataria & Ors, WPC No. 1445 of 2019, decided on 30.01.2020. 4.[1] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4.[2] To our minds, the contention advanced by Ms. Mukherjee, on behalf of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. An essential qualification, qua appointment to a post, cannot be relaxed.