Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Aman Sinha vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 23 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3295/2010
New Delhi this the 23rd day of November, 2011.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Ms. Aman Sinha,
D/o Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha,
R/o 130, LIG Flats,
Main Road, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi. . Applicant
(through Sh. Javed Ahmed, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board through its Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, New Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi. . Respondents
(through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) Challenging the order dated 23.12.2009 of respondent Selection Board, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) issue directions to the respondent to appoint the Applicant on the post of TGT Drawing Teacher as per merit list in which the applicant obtained the 5th Rank;
(ii) issue directions to respondent to pay consequential benefits to the applicant;
(iii) pass such other direction which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper.
2. The applicant was a candidate for the post of Drawing Teacher under Post Code-162/07, applications for which were invited in the advertisement No. 07/2007 of the Board. She had qualified in the selection test and obtained the 5th position in the merit list as per result notice published on 08.05.2009. But her case was not recommended by the Board on the ground that the Bachelor Degree in Fine Arts obtained by her was not from a recognized Institute. She contends that the degree was obtained by her from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Rajasthan, which is a deemed university recognized both by the University Grants Commission as well as by the Association of Indian Universities.
2.1 She filed Writ Petition No. 11528/2009 where the same submission was made and a direction was issued to the respondents to pass a speaking order. Relevant extract of the order dated 08.09.2009 of the Honble High Court of Delhi is given below:-
2. Petitioner claims to have made Representation (Annexure-I) to respondent No.2- Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2-Board) stating that the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree obtained by her from the Institute of Advance Studies in Education from Sardar Sahir, Distt. Churu, Rajasthan, is recognized by University Grants Commission as well as by Association of Indian Universities.
xxxx
5. Representation (Annexure-I) was made to respondent No.2- Board on 19th May, 2009. It is strange that respondent No.2-Board has slept over it. To make the factual position clear, a direction is issued to respondent No. 2-Board to decide petitioners Representation (Annexure-I) within three months from today and that too, by a speaking order. The fate of the Representation (Annexure-I) be conveyed to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
3. The impugned order has been passed in pursuance of this direction. The respondent No.2 has taken the position that IASE, Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr (Rajasthan) is not in the list of recognized institutes included in the Recruitment Rules of the department concerned and the list which was published in the advertisement No. 07/2007. On that ground, the candidature of the applicant was rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that IASE is a deemed university having statutory powers to confer bachelor degree in the subject of Fine Arts (BFA). The applicant having obtained BFA from a recognized university, his candidature could not have been rejected. It is also mentioned in the O.A. that the respondents have recommended the cases of candidates who had obtained BFA from Jamia Milia Isliamia and diploma from Shilp Bharati Institute not included in the list of recognized institutes and could not have discriminated the applicant on the same very ground.
5. The respondents have denied the allegations about appointing candidates having degrees/diplomas from non-recognized institutes and have stated that in the absence of any details or any proof provided by the applicant, this allegation should not be accepted.
6. We find that the contention of the applicant about discrimination cannot be sustained for want of details or any substantial proof in support of the allegation.
7. As regards her contention that she had BFA from a recognized deemed university, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the absence of specific proof that IASE is a deemed University recognized either by Govt. of India or by University Grant of India, this contention of the applicant should not be accepted at its face value. In this connection, we would like to refer to our own judgment dated 19.11.2011 in OA-1210/2010 where cognizance was taken of the Notification dated 25.06.2002 of Govt. of India by which under Section-3 of UGC Act, 1956 the IASE had been declared as a deemed University. Further, a notification of UGC was also issued on 17.07.2002 in that connection and under Section 21 of the UGC Act the IASE had the right of running courses and awarding degrees. We had also referred to the letter dated 12.02.2010 of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, which makes the following statement:-
I refer to your application dated 20.01.2010 on the above noted subject and state that the degrees/diploma already awarded by the IASE, Sadarshahr, Churu, Rajasthan are recognized by the purpose of employment under the Central Government. Since this issue had been examined by us in detail, there is no doubt that IASE is a deemed university recognized by Govt. of India as well as the University Grants Commission.
8. However, the issue before us now is whether the applicant had qualified in terms of the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules (RRs) and the advertisement notice inviting applications for the post of Drawing Teacher. Admittedly, the name of IASE does not figure in the list of Institutes mentioned in the RRs and reproduced in the advertisement notice. The RRs mention essential qualification as MA in Drawing and Painting/Finance from a recognized university. Admittedly, the applicant was not an MA Degree holder on the subject. The advertisement also speaks about BA (Hons.) in Arts Education which is also not the qualification of the applicant. As regards five year diploma, the list of recognized institutes includes BFA degree of Delhi. Since it is a degree, one has to presume that it refers to BFA degree of Delhi University; no reason is forthcoming why BFA only degree of Delhi University was included, not of others.
8.1 In any case, the applicant has not challenged the RRs of the respondent authorities, nor the advertisement notice inviting applications. It was clear to the applicant that IASE was not included in the list of recognized institutes and it was not his case that he had MA degree from a recognized university to be eligible for sitting in the examination. Learned counsel for the respondents states that all the vacancies have been filled up and nothing could be done now even if it is held that she had a valid degree.
9. The respondent Board has correctly submitted that their role is to carry out the selection test as the agency of the respondent government. It is not for them to question the wisdom of the respondent government about prescribing qualification in their RRs. They cannot be expected to decide, on their own, cases which were not in conformity with the rules of the requisitioning department. From this point of view, we do not see any infirmity in the impugned order; nor can we give any direction as prayed for by the applicant in the present O.A. where the RRs have not been challenged. In the result, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/