DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD v. MUMTAZ PARVEEN

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1134/2014, titled Mumtaz Parveen v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondents herein with the following directions: “We, therefore, allow this O.A. and quash the impugned order dated 01.03.2014 qua the applicant by which her candidature was rejected for not possessing the necessary educational qualification. We further direct the respondent DSSSB to process the case of the applicant as per the Recruitment Rules notified on 06.09.2011 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the applicant succeeds, she shall be so appointed and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of pay fixation and seniority. No costs.”

2. The brief background of facts giving rise to the present petition is that on 29.12.2009, the petitioner no. 1 had issued Advertisement No. 004/2009 inter alia inviting applications for the post of Teacher (Primary-Urdu) in MCD having Post Code 69/09 for the schools being run by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation. The essential qualifications prescribed for the said post were:

3. Apart from the aforesaid post, the said Advertisement also invited applications for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD having Post Code 70/09 and Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education having Post Code 71/09.

4. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Teacher (Primary) were subsequently amended by a Notification dated 06.09.2011, whereby the requirement of scoring 50% minimum marks was dispensed with.

5. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner no.1 issued a Corrigendum dated 13.09.2011, amending the Advertisement no. 004/2009 with respect to Post Codes 70/09 and 71/09, doing away with the requirement of the minimum marks of 50% in the Senior Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent, however, no such amendment was made with respect to Post Code 69/09, that is, for the post of Teacher (Primary-Urdu) in the MCD.

6. The respondent no.1 participated in the selection process under the said Advertisement, however, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not secure 50% marks at the Senior Secondary level. The representation filed by her was also rejected by the petitioners.

7. The respondent no.1, therefore, approached the learned Tribunal by way of the above O.A. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A., inter alia, observing as under:

dated 06.09.2011 since the earlier Recruitment Rules have been superseded by this Notification. This was obviously unacceptable. Moreover, even in the old rules as for as essential educational qualification was concerned, it was same for all types of primary teachers. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the qualification has been changed only for primary teachers other than those of the different languages does not appear to be convincing at all.

5. Therefore, in our opinion, the respondents have erred by issuing a corrigendum only for Post Codes-70/2009 and 71/2009 and leaving out Post Code-69/2009 when this post was also covered by the amendment in the Recruitment Rules. We, therefore, find substantial justification in the contention of the applicant that her case has been wrongly rejected by the respondents on the ground that she did not possess the required 50% marks at intermediate level.”

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Teacher (Primary-Urdu) had not been amended by the petitioner no.2. He further submits that in any case, the Advertisement for the said post had also not been amended by the petitioner no. 1, and having participated in the selection process on the basis of the said Advertisement, the respondent no.1 could not have been allowed to challenge the same post her rejection.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that with the change in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Teacher (Primary) by a Notification dated 06.09.2011, the prescription of a minimum of 50% marks in the Senior Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent, no longer survived. He submits that the learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly set aside the said condition in the Advertisement for the Post Code 69/09 and directed that the candidature of the respondent no.1 should be considered.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

11. Admittedly, there was no Corrigendum issued by the petitioner no.1 as far as the post of Teacher (Primary-Urdu) under Post Code 69/09 in the Advertisement No. 004/2009 is concerned. Such Corrigendum was issued only for the posts of Teacher (Primary) in MCD under Post Code 70/09 and Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education under Post Code 71/09. The respondent no. 1 participated in the selection process without challenging the said prescription of securing a minimum of 50% marks in Senior Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent from a recognized Board.