Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajani Sani vs State Council Of Educational Research & ... on 16 August, 2022
1
O.A. No.2123/2022
M.A. No.2228/2022
M.A. No.2229/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2123/2022
M.A. No.2228/2022
M.A. No.2229/2022
This the 16th day of August, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
1. Rajani Saini
D/o Sh. Bladev Raj
R/o: 221, Samachar Apartment,
Mayur Vihar Extn., New Delhi-110091
2. Sonia Kakkar
W/o Mr. Vivek Vishnoi
R/o: Flat No. 1703, Tower 05,
Supreme Towers, Sector-99,
Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida,
U.P. -201303
3. Pragati Srivastava
W/o Dr. K.S. Srivastava
R/o: B-7/30, Sector 18,
Rohini, New Delhi-110089
4. Uma Anurag
W/o T.S. Anurag
R/o: 125, Ground Floor,
Back Right Side, Ashoka Enclave Part 1
Sector 34, Faridabad, Haryana-121003
5. Deepa Vats
W/o Sh. Hemant Kumar
R/o C-3, 39 Second Floor, Sector 11,
Rohini, New Delhi-110089
6. Alka Yogi
W/o Mr. Lokesh Gupta
R/o: 1954/9, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj,
Opp. Anand Hotel, New Delhi-110055
2
O.A. No.2123/2022
M.A. No.2228/2022
M.A. No.2229/2022
7. Yogesh Sharma
S/o Lt. Sh. O.P. Sharma
R/o: 21, Karkardooma,
D.A. Flats, New Delhi-110092
8. Rajdev Nayak
R/o: 1C, First Floor, Humanyupnur
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029
9. Rupa Jaiswal
W/o Mr. Arun Kumar
R/o B88, Dabri Extn.,
Near Gopal Mandir, New Delhi-110045
10. Anudha Khatri
D/o Sh. Dharampal Khatri
R/o H.No. 7/294, Model Town,
Nahra Nahri Road, Bahadurgarh-124507
11. Anju Sharma
W/o Mr. Vijay Sharma,
R/o 46, Sadar CGHS Limited,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-1,
Extension, New Delhi-110091
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Kushagra Bansal)
Versus
State Council of Educational
Research & Training,
Through its Director,
O/A: SCERT Bhawan, Defence Colony,
Varun Marg, New Delhi-110024
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav with Ms. Monika Bhargava
And Mr. Vineet Dwivedi)
3
O.A. No.2123/2022
M.A. No.2228/2022
M.A. No.2229/2022
O R D E R (Oral)
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
MA No.2228/2022 The MA filed by the applicants seeking permission to file a joint application is allowed.
OA No.2123/2022
The present OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following reliefs and interim relief:-
Reliefs:
" a) For seeking directions to the respondent to formulate a scheme for regularizing the services of the applicants working on Contract and Guest Lecturer after eligibility relaxation so as to confer on them a permanent status; and
b) To direct the respondent to grant all consequential benefits to all the applicants from the date of joining; and
c) To direct the Respondent to fill up the vacancies in future as and when the vacancies will arise within 6 months occurrence to avoid any contractual arrangements in future; and
d) To set-aside notification bearing no. U.O. No. F3(II) /SCERT/Admn./Contractual/13-14/8062 dated 09.11.2021 to the extent that it declares the candidature of the applicants as „Not Eligible‟; and
e) To further extend the tenure of the employment of the applicants till their regularization; and
f) To further direct the respondent to consider the candidature of the applicants in the notification no.
3(1)/SCERT/Admn./Cont./Lect./2018/8698- 8746 & 3(1)/SCERT/Admn./Cont./Lect./2018/8667-97 each dated 30.11.2021 after formulating a scheme for the transition of the applicants to the post of Assistant Professor (Contract); and 4 O.A. No.2123/2022 M.A. No.2228/2022 M.A. No.2229/2022
g) Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) to consider relief to the applicant that effect on career for long due to above administrative delay as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Interim relief:
a) To stay the notification bearing no. U.O. No. F3(II)/SCERT/Admn./Contractual/13-14/8062 dated 09.11.2021 to the extent that it declares the candidature of the Applicants as "Not Eligible" till the pendency of this instant application; and
b) To allow the applicants to continue with the employment with the Respondent till the pendency of this application; and
c) To pass any other order as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit."
3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants are aggrieved of the impugned order No. F3 (II) /SCERT/Admn./Contractual/13-14/8062 dated 09.11.2021 as per which the applicants have been declared ineligible for the post of Assistant Professor on the ground that they do not possess the prescribed qualifications as notified vide SCERT No.F3(5)/RRS/Admn/SCERT/2019/ 9361-65 dated 23.10.2019. He further states that as per the new qualifications, National Eligibility Test (NET) or Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission, Rules have been provided as Educational Qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor. Since the applicants do not possess the same but have been working on contractual basis 5 O.A. No.2123/2022 M.A. No.2228/2022 M.A. No.2229/2022 with the respondent, they may either be exempted from this requirement or given time to acquire the said qualification, meanwhile continuing them on contractual basis.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants cites the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court titled University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 256, especially Para-18 (a) thereof, which reads as under:-
"18. We, therefore, direct that all the concerned contract employees engaged by the University be afforded benefits as detailed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit dated 09.03.2021 with following modifications:
(a) The benefit of age relaxation as contemplated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit without any qualification must be extended to all the contract employees."
He draws a parallel with this case stating that Delhi University had provided the benefit of age relaxation to all the contractual employees and on the same analogy the applicants may be granted the benefit of relaxation of qualification so that they may compete for regular selection to the post of Assistant Professor. Alternatively while continuing them on contractual basis, they may be allowed to acquire the new qualifications.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that although the applicants did possess the prescribed 6 O.A. No.2123/2022 M.A. No.2228/2022 M.A. No.2229/2022 qualifications at the time when they were engaged on contractual basis, they do not hold the qualifications now prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor. Therefore, it is a simple case of ineligibility on the ground of non-possession of prescribed qualifications. He further states that the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court quoted by the learned counsel for the applicants was only for the purpose of age relaxation and not for relaxation of qualification. Therefore, the present case is different from the one cited by the learned counsel for the applicants.
6. We have heard both the learned counsel at length. As conceded by the learned counsel for the applicants the applicants do not possess the qualifications currently prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The respondents were well within their right to prescribe any qualification that they feel appropriate when regular appointments are being resorted to from the open market. For any open market recruitment, no relaxation of qualification can be provided nor can the respondents be directed to wait for the contractual employees to acquire the new qualifications. We appreciate the fact that the applicants have put in long years of contractual employment with the respondent and may become over-age after they acquire the prescribed qualifications. As and when they acquire these 7 O.A. No.2123/2022 M.A. No.2228/2022 M.A. No.2229/2022 qualifications, they are given liberty to file a fresh O.A. for the purpose of age relaxation, if they so desire.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the OA is accordingly dismissed with liberty as aforesaid. MA No.2229/2022 is also dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Anand Mathur) (Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More) Member (A) Chairman cc.