Jaswant Singh Yadav v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The petitioner has sought review of the judgment dated 9th April, 2015 whereby his writ petition, assailing the order dated 9th August, 2012 in O.A.No.2858/2011 and review order dated 30th November, 2012 in R.A.No.325/2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, was rejected. 2016:DHC:1831-DB

2. The review petition is premised on the order dated 18th September, 2015 passed in Review Pet.No.346/2015 in W.P.(C)No.7309/2013, Baboo Lal Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors. wherein the relief was granted to Shri Baboo Lal Sharma, similarly placed as the petitioner. It appears that the offer of appointment dated 16th January, 2009 issued by the respondent no.1 to the appellant for appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) in the government school in the NCT of Delhi administered by respondent no.1, was withdrawn for the reason that the petitioner’s qualification of M.A. (Hindi) was an additional qualification. This decision of the respondent no.1 was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment dated 9th August, 2012. The review thereof was also rejected on 30th November, 2012. The petitioner’s challenge by way of W.P.(C)No.1865/2014 was rejected by us on the 9th of April 2015.

3. Shri Baboo Lal Sharma, petitioner in Review Pet.No.346/2015, similarly placed as the petitioner in the present case, also assailed the order of the respondent no.1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which rejected his claim as well for the same reasons. We may note that Baboolal Sharma’s case was concerned with the post of TGT (Sanskrit). Thereafter, his W.P.(C)No.7309/2013 was also rejected on 9th April, 2015. However, his review petition bearing Review Pet.No.346/2015 has been allowed by us on 18th September, 2015 holding as follows: “10. Our attention is drawn to the consideration of this very aspect by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the judgment dated 7th August, 2013 in Sachin Gupta which is in the following terms:

11. We also find that the Division Bench has considered the teaching ability of a person who has studied the concerned language at the graduate as well as at the post-graduate level in the following terms:

court was drawn only to paras 30 and 32 of Sachin Gupta and not to the above findings. xxx xxx xxx

14. Our attention is also drawn to the notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi dated 17th January, 1994 regarding the method of recruitment and qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) in the Directorate of Education of the Government. Amongst the amendments notified by the concerned government, so far as the qualifications required for direct recruitment are concerned, the respondents have notified the following eligibility qualifications: “(For appointment as Hindi Teachers only) Sahitya Rattan of Hindi Sahitya Sammellan Prayag having secured atleast 45 per cent marks in aggregate with English in Matriculation provided further that the requirement as to the minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate shall be relaxable in the case of (a) candidate who possesses a Post Graduate Qualification in MIL concerned from a recognised University (b) candidates belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically handicapped candidates.” (Emphasis by us)

15. As a result, for a candidate possessing a postgraduate qualification in MIL (Modern Indian Language), a minimum requirement of 45% marks in aggregate at the graduate level is relaxable. xxx xxx xxx

17. In view of the above discussion, we find that the relevant law on the subject as well as binding notification of the Government of NCT of Delhi was not placed before the Division Bench of this court, resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record.

18. The prayer made in the review petition is justified and admitted by the respondent. The findings of the Division Bench of this court in para 10 of the judgment dated 9th April, 2015 are hereby recalled. It is held that the petitioner fulfilled the basic eligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules and notified in the advertisement are possessed the required educational qualifications. The petitioner was, therefore, validly appointed and has to be permitted to join at a place of posting to be effected by the respondent no.1.

19. The claim of the petitioner in the petition before the tribunal as per the Original Application seeking appointment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) is upheld with the exception that he shall not be entitled to back wages but would be entitled to all consequential benefits such as seniority as per his merit position in the select panel and notional pay fixation with reference to the date of his joining being treated as the one on which the person immediately junior to them joined duty.”

4. It is not disputed that a valid degree recognised by the UGC has been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner possesses the post-graduate degree of M.A.(Hindi) and therefore, possessed the essential qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi) on the date the appointment letter was issued to him.

5. In view of the above, as in the case of Baboolal Sharma, the relevant law on the subject as well as binding notification of the Government of NCT of Delhi was not placed before us when we passed the order dated 9th April, 2015 resulting in the error apparent on the face of the record. As such, the prayer made in the review petition is justified and is also duly admitted by the respondent before us.

6. As a result, the findings of this court in para 10 of the judgment dated 9th April, 2015 are hereby recalled. It is held that the petitioner fulfilled the basic eligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules and are notified in the advertisement, possessing the required educational qualification. Therefore, the offer of appointment was validly issued to the petitioner and he has to be permitted to join the place of posting to be effected by respondent no.1.