Government of NCT of Delhi v. Naveen Sharma

1. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in view of the findings recorded in WP(C) No.1520/2010, Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Sachin Gupta which has been followed by the Tribunal. As per the findings and ratio in Sachin Gupta (supra), the respondents were eligible to be appointed as TGT (English) as they had studied English as an Elective/Core subject at the graduation level. The High Court has held that the expression "Elective Subject" does not require or 2016:DHC:8922-DB Isi m.Endat[6] that the studcnts/cEndidEtGS should huvo studied the said subject in all the three years. This is for the University to decide and prescribe. A core/elective subject may be taught in two years orthree per years as/the curriculum adopted and prescribed by the University. The Core or Elective subjects are those which are counted and included in the marks or the grading awarded to the students. They are subjects in which the candidate has thorough knowledge. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that the respondents do not satisfy the said requirement, but the petitioners have proceeded and applied the test that the respondents should have studied the subject in all three years of graduation, then alone the subject would qualify as an elective subject. Otherwise, the subject would be treated as non-elective. Non-elective subjects are often described as Mandatory or subsidiary subjects. These subjects are qualifying in nature and student should clear/pass the papers, but the marks are not counted and included in the grading. This criteria was not adopted and applied by the petitioner. The test or basis adopted and applied by the petitioner being irrational and unintelligible, has resulted in an error in the decision making process. The writ petition must fail.

2. In view ofthe above, the writ petitions are dismissed. -•(/'— SANJIVpiANNA, J J NAJMIWAZIRI, J