Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Rosy Gupta vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 7 September, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 1639/2014
Order Reserved on: 07.08.2015
Pronounced on: 07.09.2015
Honble Mr A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Honble Mr V. N. Gaur, Member (A)
Mrs. Rosy Gupta
W/o Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
R/o 2528 Churiwalan,
Bazar Sitaram,
Delhi-110006.
- Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. K.Sunil)
Vs.
1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Through Directorate of Education,
Through its Secretary,
New Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
New Delhi-110092.
- Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Vijay Pandita)
ORDER
Honble Shri V.N.Gaur, Member (A) The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue direction thereby directing the respondents to comply with the notice dt. 26.3.2013 for age relaxation to the extent of number of years which she had worked in the SSA for the purposes of selection of Special Education Teachers (Special Educators) on the strength of the applicant working in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) as resource person and to declare any other notification in this behalf to be ultra virus, not enforceable retrospectively and not applicable for the selection process in furtherance of notification dt. 26.3.2013 and to declare the applicant to be successful candidate for the examination held on 28.4.2013 and be pleased to consider the recruitment of the applicant for the post of Special Education Teacher (Special Educator).
(ii) Any other order or direction or relief which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the applicant along with cost and against the respondents.
2. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) advertised 927 posts of Special Education Teacher under the Post Code 1/2013 vide advertisement no.1/13, the last date of application being 20.03.2013. The age prescribed for the post was not exceeding 30 years, relaxable for Government servants up to 5 years. Through an addendum dated 26.03.2013 the respondent no. 2 announced age relaxation of 10 years to all women candidates, and age relaxation to the extent of number of years worked in the SSA to all resource persons working in the SSA. The last date of submission of application was extended to 01.04.2013 only for the women/ resource persons working in the SSA but the date of determining the eligibility remained 20.03.2013 as in the main advertisement. On the basis of the examination conducted on 28.04.2013 the respondent no. 2 declared the result on 19.02.2014 and published a Rejection Notice on 13.09.2014. The applicant had applied for the post expecting age relaxation under both the categories as announced through the addendum but her name figured in the Rejection Notice, with the remark overage, the documents submitted by the candidate is not as per requirement of Dte. of Education, GNCTD. The applicant has accordingly filed this OA questioning the rejection of her candidature by the respondents. It is admitted fact that the applicant fulfilled all other eligibility conditions.
3. The addendum dated 26.03.2015 was issued on the basis of the order dated 25.03.2013 issued by respondent no. 1 providing for age relaxation as follows:
1. All those applicants who are working in the SSA as resource persons for the children with Special needs be granted age relaxation to the extent of number of years they have worked in the SSA.
2. General age relaxation of 10 years in case of women candidates be also applied.
4. The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 16.02.2014 further clarified to respondent no.2 that age relaxation be granted to those applicants who are working in the SSA as resource persons for children with special needs for Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi only to the extent of number of years they have worked in SSA as per order dated 25.03.2013.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in his submission stated that the candidature of the applicant has been rejected on the sole ground that she was overage on the cut off date, i.e., 20.03.2013. The age of the applicant on the cut off date was approximately 44 years and 4 months. In terms of the relaxation given by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 25.03.2013, all women candidates got a general age relaxation of 10 years and those working in SSA as resource person for children with special needs were entitled to age relaxation to the extent of number of years they had worked in SSA. The applicant has submitted experience certificates showing that she worked as a resource person from 1995 to 2013, i.e., nearly 18 years with various NGOs in the field of special education. After availing 10 years relaxation as a woman candidate, if the applicant is given the benefit of her service under SSA she would be entitled to be considered for the post under reference.
6. The learned counsel refuted the stand taken by the respondents that such relaxation was admissible only to the resource persons directly employed by the Directorate of Education, and stated that the order dated 25.03.2013 was applicable to all resource persons in the SSA as it did not make any distinction between the persons working directly under the Directorate of Education and those working under NGOs. The letter issued by the respondents on 06.02.2014, however, distorted the connotation of the word resource persons working in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in the order dated 25.03.2013 to mean resource persons under Directorate of education in SSA, GNCT of Delhi. The annexure to that letter further restricted the scope of the term resource persons to resource teachers. The respondents have, therefore, given an illegal interpretation to the order dated 25.03.2013 discriminating against the SSA resource persons working in NGOs. He further argued that the clarification dated 06.02.2014 was given after the extended date of submitting applications and the declaration of the result of the written examination conducted by the DSSSB. This amounted to changing the rules while the selection process had already started, which was illegal. To buttress his contention that NGOs were part of the SSA, he referred to a document NGO Initiative in Inclusion of SSA Experience purported to be a report prepared by the Planning Commission. The preface of this document mentions that NGOs have been used in many States to reach children with disabilities who have previously failed to enrol. A need was, therefore, felt to capture how the NGOs associated with the Inclusive Education programme had contributed to its planning and implementation. He also referred to a document captioned Evaluation Report on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan prepared by Programme Evaluation Organisation, Planning Commission. Referring to para 3.4, Role of Non-Governmental Organisations in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, learned counsel stated that it clearly established that NGOs were an integral part of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The applicant, who has submitted certificates of experience from NGOs associated with Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, is entitled for age relaxation given in order dated 25.03.2013, claimed the learned counsel. With a view to establish the bonafide of the NGOs, the learned counsel referred to a number of appreciation letters and sanction letters filed with the rejoinder giving financial assistance, by Delhi Administration, to one of the NGOs, called Churiwalan Navyuvak Prem Sabha (Regd.) Delhi.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents denied that there was any intention behind the order dated 25.03.2013 to give age relaxation to SSA resource persons working in the NGOs. He stated that being a woman candidate, the applicant was entitled to age relaxation up to the age of 40 years. Beyond that, the age relaxation would be admissible only if the applicant had served in the SSA, GNCT of Delhi. He also referred to the clarification issued on 06.02.2014 regarding age relaxation to the SSA resource persons who have worked in SSA, GNCT of Delhi. The enclosure to that letter elaborated the duties of the resource teacher under Inclusive Education component of SSA as laid down by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in its Suggestive Guidelines for recruitment of resource teachers under SSA. The Ministry of Human Resource Development has also prescribed the guidelines for recruitment to the post of Special Education Teacher under SSA by the State Governments. The use of the term SSA resource person in the order dated 25.03.2013 has to be seen in this perspective. The clarification of 06.02.2014, therefore, cannot be treated as illegal. For the same reasons, it cannot be interpreted as changing the rules midway in the selection of Special Education Teacher as no new element was introduced by the order dated 06.02.2014. That the Directorate of Education engages resources persons under SSA directly could be seen from the notices issued by the Department of Education and UEE Mission in 2013 for the engagement of resource persons for giving special training on contract basis under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Delhi. He also referred to order dated 26.03.2015 whereby the competent authority has extended the period of contract in respect of Subject Specific Teacher (TGTs) and Primary Teacher engaged and working under SSA on contract basis till 10.05.2015. Another order dated 05.05.2015 directs the Head of Schools that the resource persons (CWSN) should be used only for teaching assistance and no other responsibility should be given to them. Learned counsel concluded by saying that the relaxation given by the order dated 25.03.2013 was intended only for the SSA resource persons engaged in teaching assistance/activities and who were engaged by the Directorate of Education/ UEE Mission.
8. We have heard the learned counsels and carefully perused the records. It is an admitted fact that the applicant fulfils the educational qualification required for the post of Special Education Teacher. The only dispute is with regard to the age relaxation admissible in terms of the order dated 25.03.2013 issued by the respondent no.1 to the SSA resource persons having worked in an NGO. The question before us is whether the applicant is eligible for the age relaxation for the period she served as resource person in NGOs.
9. The applicant has produced two documents in support of the contention that NGOs are an integral part of the SSA, i.e., (i) NGO Initiative in Inclusion and (ii) SSA Experience and Evaluation Report on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The first document is a compilation of the experience of States like Orissa, U.P., Tamil Nadu, West Bengal where the State Governments have utilised the services of NGOs for achieving inclusion. The second document, i.e. Evaluation Report on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which includes a document Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan: Framework for Implementation (DRAFT) (December 1999), Copy Right, MHRD, Government of India. This draft outlines the basic features of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan defining what is Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, its aims, objectives, broad strategies, mentioned norms etc. The section on planning appraisal and fund flows under SSA makes a mention that involvement of NGOs will strengthen this community-based approach for organizing the preparatory activities. Under the head Management Structure of Programme Implementation and Integration with Current Efforts the role of NGOs in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan has also been defined. Thus, it cannot be denied that Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan framework envisages a place for NGOs in the area of implementation of the programme. However, granting of age relaxation is a matter of policy to be deliberated by the Government. In this case, the respondents had issued the letter dated 25.03.2013 granting age relaxation to all those applicants who are working in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan as resource persons for the children with special needs to the extent of number of years they have worked in the SSA and subsequently the respondents have clarified that this relaxation was restricted to those who worked in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The SSA resource persons working under the Directorate of Education and those working in NGOs associated with SSA form two distinct groups of candidates and it cannot be said that granting age relaxation to the former alone amounts to discrimination, and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution. We therefore accept the contention of the respondents that the letters dated 25.03.2013 and 26.02.2014 put together reflect the policy of the respondents to extend the age relaxation only to the SSA resource persons engaged by the respondents.
10. Further the letter dated 06.02.2014 being a clarification in respect of letter dated 25.03.2013, cannot be interpreted to have changed the rules of the examination after the result of the written test has been declared. In Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. N.R.Parmar and Ors. (2012)13SCC340, the Apex Court observed thus:
Essentially, a clarification does not introduce anything new, to the already existing position. A clarification, only explains the true purport of an existing instrument. As such, a clarification always relates back to the date of the instrument which is sought to be clarified.
11. We are unable to accept the argument of the applicant that the clarification dated 06.02.2014 would amount to changing the rules of the game midway.
12. Notwithstanding the aforementioned clarification given by the respondents, the applicant has not been able to establish that she has actually worked under SSA even run by an NGO. The applicant has submitted certificate dated 14.08.2013 of NGO named Churiwalan Navyuvak Prem Sabha certifying that the applicant had worked as resource person for education and upliftment of children with special needs in walled city area since 1995 to 2008. Another NGO named Koshish also run by Sanchalak, Churiwalan Mohalla Sudhar Samiti issued an experience certificate dated 21.08.2013 certifying that the applicant had worked as resource person for children with special needs for 3 days a week since the year 2008 imparting education to the children with special needs under the concept of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Yet another certificate dated 22.08.2013 was issued by Samarthyam (National Centre for Accessible Environments) certifying that applicant was associated as a resource person for children with special needs under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme for Universalization of Elementary Education. However, the applicant has submitted documents in respect of one NGO, namely, Churiwalan Navyuvak Prem Sabha to establish its antecedents which consists of receipt and payments accounts for the year ending 31.03.1991, 31.03.1992 and 31.03.1994 and a number of appreciation letters issued by many authorities and organisations. Significantly all the appreciation letters and the accounts mention only one activity of the NGO, i.e., running of a library and reading room. Nowhere there is a mention of any activity related to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. There is no document that could show that the NGOs from whom the certificates have been submitted by the applicant have ever been associated with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan activities run by respondent no.1.
13. In the above background and considering the entire conspectus of the case, we find the OA devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(V.N. Gaur) (A.K. Bhardwaj) Member (A) Member (J) sd