Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nisha Rani vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 April, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.2248/2008
New Delhi, this the 2nd day of April, 2009
HON,BLE MR.JUSTICE M.RAMACHANDRAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN(J)
HONBLE MR. N.D.DAYAL, MEMBER (A)
Nisha Rani,
D/o Shri Om Prakash,
R/o Village Madanpur Dabas,
P.O. Rani Khera,
Delhi-110081. Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri G.D. Bhandari)
versus
Government of NCT of Delhi, through
1. The Secretary,
Delhi Administration,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Directorate of Education,
Establishment IV Branch,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110 092. Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri H.K. Gangwani)
ORDER
Honble Mr. Justice M.Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J):
Before adverting to the justifiability of the claim urged in this application, we may give the background, in which the application came to be filed. Nisha Rani, the applicant belongs to OBC as recognized by the Government of Delhi. She had passed her Secondary School Examination in March, 1997. She had also come out successful in the Senior School Certificate Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in March, 1999.
2. In the year 2001, she had enrolled herself for a three year Degree Correspondence Course with the University of Delhi. They had a system of Distant Mode Education and she had completed her course leading to the Degree in Bachelor of Arts by 2004 and had been declared as passed. The Degree obtained by her has been annexed to the application as Annexure A-6.
3. It is her case that while studying for the Degree Course, she had joined a two year diploma course in the year 2003, with the Board of Secondary Education M.P. as a regular student. She had secured first Division. Annexure A-10 shows that she had passed the Annual Promotion Examination leading to the diploma D.Ed. As she was qualified to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), she had responded to the advertisement issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board as Annexure `A. The essential qualifications required were Senior Secondary pass, and two years Diploma Certificate Course on the subject of education and optional Hindi at secondary level. She had appeared for the written test as also objective type examination and she was named among the successful candidates coming under the OBC. She had been thereafter offered the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary).
4. A Medical examination and verification of original testimonials were pre-requirement for appointment. She had been directed to appear before the competent authority on 31.10.2007 and verification had also been carried out. However, no call had come thereafter. As no appointment letters came, the applicant had sought for further information but at that time she had been told that since she pursued and passed two different courses simultaneously, final decision about her eligibility and claims were being processed. When application under the RTI Act had been made seeking information, she had been told that the matter was under consideration.
5. In the meanwhile, the applicant had been seeking information from the UGC and by Annexure A-13, she came across proceedings when a view with regard to the validity of similar claim has been recorded. The letter from the UGC dated 20.02.2006 addressed to Ms. Mandakini Thakur, Director of Education states that two courses could be pursued simultaneously, one from regular and other from distance mode and UGC has not issued any circular or guidelines in that regard.
6. Applicant submits that in spite of bringing the above to the notice of the respondents, the matter was hanging fire. In fact, the Deputy Director of Education had addressed the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal on 17.12.2007, requiring information whether as per their norms, a candidate can pursue two courses simultaneously, since the applicant had undergone a course at Bhopal as well as at Delhi. It is averred that to her knowledge, there was no reply to it. Again by her letter dated 14.07.2008, she had represented that appointment to her may not to be delayed any further. Since no favourable response had come, Original Application has been filed.
7. Mr. Bhandari, counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the imaginary objections against appointing her has caused considerable prejudice to the applicant. The rightful claims have been denied; her right for salary and position of seniority has been adversely affected. When the highest body, namely, the UGC had pointed out that there could not have been any objectionable feature for a candidate undergoing correspondence course and simultaneously attending a different course under another authority, the matter could not have been delayed indefinitely and the fundamental rights of the applicant for equality could not have been violated.
8. Mr. Gangwani, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents with reference to the counter statement points out that the matter had been duly looked into but sufficient guidelines were not coming to the respondents in spite of the matter being taken up with the concerned institutions. It is submitted that the certificate issued by the UGC about the validity of courses attended and completed simultaneously, does not refer at all to a situation where a person had undergone a Degree course and a Diploma course.
9. Paras 4.13 to 4.16 of the counter statement are to the following effect:
The contents of these paragraphs are not admitted save and except what appears from records. It is submitted that those candidates who had passed the diploma course and graduation/post graduation degree course simultaneously were referred to concerned Board/University for obtaining clarificati9on, as to whether as per their rules they allow their students to pursue two courses simultaneously or not. Such candidates were not issued the letter for getting themselves medically examined.
The contents of these paragraphs are not admitted save and except what appears from records. It is submitted that the UGC has stated that the degree courses can be pursued simultaneously one from regular and other from distance mode. Whereas in the instant case the applicant has pursued one degree and one diploma simultaneously. Therefore, the said letter of UGC is not applicable in the instant case. It is, therefore, stated that the letter of the UGC is not applicable.
10. However, there is no specific contention that there has been a rejection of her cause.
11. From a perusal of the available facts, we think it will be appropriate to conclude that the objections of the respondents are technical if not fanciful. The validity of the Degree possessed by the applicant is not under dispute. Likewise, diploma obtained by her in the subject of education, is also found as acceptable. She comes within the age group eligible for appointment and also possesses the other qualifications, postulated by the advertisement. There has been no proceedings whereby any competent authorities have issued any orders whereby any of the certificates possessed by the applicant are declared as invalid or inoperative. The stand of the respondents that a person could have undergone courses for getting two different Degrees but not a Degree and diploma, is difficult to accept. Therefore, we are of the view that the reluctance of the respondents in conferring appointment to the applicant, is without justification.
12. As a consequence and as arising out of the discussions, as above, we hereby direct the respondents concerned to issue a formal order of appointment to the applicant as a primary teacher pursuant to her application with reference to Annexure-A Notification. This should be done within two weeks from today. After getting accommodated, we make it clear that the applicant will have the right to agitate over issues such as seniority, as the law might permit since we have not gone into any of such aspects. O.A. stands allowed. We also direct that the applicant is to be paid Rs.2000/- as costs.
(N.D.Dayal) (M.Ramachandran) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) `SRD