Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms Jaimala vs Govt. Of Nctd on 23 February, 2023
Item-18 1 OA-255/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A.No.255/2015
Reserved on:16.02.2023
Pronounced on :23.02.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Ms. Jaimala
D/o Sh. Babu Lal,
R/o House No.32, Gali No.2,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Colony,
Khera Khurd, Delhi-110082
Aged about 35 years
(Group 'C')
(Candidate to the post of Teacher (Primary)
In MCD) ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya
Delhi.
Item-18 2 OA-255/2015
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Chairman,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi -110092.
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Ms.Sangita Rai and Mr.Subodh
Kumar Jha )
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member(A) In the present OA the applicant has challenged the impugned order No. F.4(391)/DSSSB/CCI/2014/757- 765 dated 05/12/2014 wherein applicant with other candidates was declared Not-Eligible and her candidature for the post of Teacher (Primary) Post Code 70/09 has been rejected. Being aggrieved of the same, the applicant has filed the present OA.
2. In the present OA the applicant is seeking following Item-18 3 OA-255/2015 reliefs:
"i). quash and set aside the impugned order/reject list dated 5.12.2014 to the extent the applicant has been placed therein declaring her ineligible; and declare the applicant as „eligible‟
ii) direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Teacher (primary) Post Code (70/09) with all consequential benefits.
iii) award costs of the proceedings and
iv) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon‟ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) has issued employment notification in the year 2009 to fill up various posts of Teacher (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 70/09). The applicant (SC candidate) being fully eligible, duly applied for the said post. Later in the year 2011 vide corrigendum issued by the DSSSB (Annexure A/4) the number of vacancies were increased and the modified Item-18 4 OA-255/2015 Recruitment Rules for selection process were also notified, prescribing the following essential qualifications:
S.No. Description Previous Amended
(iii) Essential 1. Sr. Secondary 1.Senior
Qualification (10+2) or Secondary(10+2)or
for Intermediate or Intermediate or its
Post Code its equivalent with equivalent from a
70/09. 50% marks from a recognized
recognized Board. Board/institution.
2. Two years 2. Two year's
diploma/Certificate diploma/certificate
course in ETE/JBT course in ETE/JBT
or B.EI.Ed.from or equivalent or
recognized B.EI.Ed. from a
institutions or its recognized
equivalent. institution.
3. Must have 3. Must have
passed Hindi as a passed Hindi as a
subject at subject at
Secondary Level. Secondary Level.
4. As per modified Recruitment Rules, the essential qualification for the post Code 70/09 candidates must have passed 'Hindi' as a subject at Secondary Level. The applicant herein had completed her secondary level in the year 1996 with 'Sanskrit' as subject. Later, Item-18 5 OA-255/2015 during the process of recruitment, the said criteria was brought in by amending the RRs and notified by way of corrigendum to the employment notification in the year 2011. By that time, the applicant had also undergone study of Hindi at Secondary Level and passed the same, to avoid any legal complication. It is submitted that she cannot be treated as ineligible since she has studied and passed Hindi at higher level i.e. Sr.Secondary Level, Graduate Level and post graduate level also prior to closing date of applications.
5. The applicant has studied and passed Hindi at her graduation and post graduation level also which is higher level than the minimum level prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. The requirement of passing Hindi at Secondary Level is relatable with minimum educational qualifications prescribed in RRs which is merely 10+2. Thus, when candidates are graduate and/or above, their passing Hindi at higher Levels has to be recognized. And there is no reason as to how the Item-18 6 OA-255/2015 study of Hindi as a language at Secondary Level is more relevant than the study of Hindi language in BA course for the job requirement.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance of this Hon'ble Tribunal's judgement dated 12.09.2016 in OA-4650/2014 in Praveen Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The operative part of the said is reads under:
"4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and records. Firstly, we are of the opinion that judgment of Hon‟ble High Court in Sachin Gupta (supra) will be applicable in this case. Moroever, nobody can deny that having studied Sanskrit at the secondary level, the applicant will have a better grasp on Hindi, Sanskrit being the mother language. Further, the applicant has attained higher qualifications through Hindi medium."
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed their counter reply. The respondents has stated that the brief facts of the case are that the respondents in the year 2014 vide advertisement No.004/2009 invited applicants for various posts inter Item-18 7 OA-255/2015 alia post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi having a Post Code 70/09. The relevant portion of the Advertisement is as follows:
"Name of the Post: Teacher (Primary) in MCD. Post Code 70/09. Number of Vacancies: 4500 UR-1900, OBC 1044, SC 786, ST-790, Including PH (OH-
DA/OL/OAL/EL-SE, PHVM-B/LV)-95. Ex-982) Essential Qualifications :
1. Sr. Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board.
2. Two years diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EL.Ed. from recognized institutions or its equivalent.
3. Must have passed Hindi as a subject at Secondary Level.
Desirable Qualification: Computer knowledge. Pay Scale: 9300-34800- plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/-, Group-C Non- Gazetted Probation Period: Two years.
Age Limit: 20-27 years. Relaxable for SC/ST 05 years, 0BC-03 years, PH-10 years, PH&SC/ST-15 years. PH&OBC - 13 years.
Departmental employees - up to 42 years of age (General), up to 47 years for SC/ST, having 03 years of continuous service in the same line or allied cadres.
Item-18 8 OA-255/2015 Relaxable up to 37 years for (General) and up to 42 years for SC/ST - for widows, divorced women and women judicially separated from their husband and who are not remarried."
As per available records it has been observed that the applicant has not passed the secondary level exam, with Hindi as a subject, as on Cut-off date i.e. 15.01.2010. Hence not having the minimum essential qualification, as prescribed by the User department, as on Cut-off date i.e. 15.01.2010, the applicant was not found eligible. However, in the remarks mentioned at Sl. No. 1168 in the Rejection Notice No. 344 dated 05.12.2014, it was inadvertently mentioned that "Hindi not passed in Sr. Sec. level', whereas as per RRs the candidate must have passed Hindi as a subject at Secondary level which in the instant matter, the applicant does not fulfilled. Hence, her candidature was rejected.
Item-18 9 OA-255/2015
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance of judgment of CAT in OA-4651/2014 The relevant paragraphs of aforesaid OA are reads under:-
"8. It was submitted that the applicant had passed her 10th class Examination with Hindi only after the cut-off date, and since she did not fulfil the mandatory condition of having passed Hindi at the 10th level before the cut-off date, she is not entitled to any reliefs. It was further submitted that the Corrigendum Notice dated 13.09.2011 had been issued by the DSSSB in compliance of the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA No.121/2009, but the last date of eligibility was, however, not changed, as per the orders passed by the Tribunal in that OA. It was, therefore, prayed that the present OA may be dismissed, being bereft of any merit.
11. It was submitted that even though the applicant had passed the 10th class level from the CBSE as a private candidate subsequent to the cut-off date, but fulfilment of the essential required qualification as Hindi being main subject at the Secondary level was essential as on the cut-off date, which the applicant did not have. It was further submitted that even though English was made mandatory at the 12th level, as per revised RRs, due to upgradation of the posts from Group "C" to Group "B", it did not preclude the condition that the candidate must possess Hindi as a subject at the Secondary Level, which was the essential criteria in the non-modified RRs itself also. It was, therefore, submitted that since the applicant did not fulfil the required essential qualifications as on the cut-off date, as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement under the relevant RRs, there is no merit in the OA, and the reliefs sought by the applicant cannot be granted in the OA, and it was prayed that O.A. may be dismissed.
15. Heard. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out the Annexure A-3(colly) - the certificate of All India Secondary School Examination, 2005, in which it was shown that she had passed Sanskrit as one of her subjects but not hindi. It was also pointed out that she had later passed Class X Hindi as a private candidate, though Certificate dated 28.05. (Annexure A4) which was issued after the cut-off date.
Item-18 10 OA-255/2015 "9...............It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date." (Emphasis supplied) iii). In Bhupinderpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 262, the Hon'ble Apex Court had in Paragraphs 13 & 14 stated as follows:-
"12. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications.
13............It is for this purpose that we lay down the following guidelines for the future selection process: A. xxxxxxxxxxxx (Not reproduced here). B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when the advertisement/notification represents that the candidates must have the qualifications in question, with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such Item-18 11 OA-255/2015 qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even be better than those who apply, can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration. C to E. xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Not reproduced here)." (Emphasis supplied)
v) In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt JT 1997 (7) SC 287, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
` "06...............A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others."
vi) In the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt) vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Another, 1995 Supp(4) SCC 706, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"2.............It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to rules...........".
"8. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the so called confession made by the officer in the Court that persons haying lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), Item-18 12 OA-255/2015 having been based on misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside.
21. The OA is, therefore, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs."
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record with the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties and also considered the submission made by the learned counsels, averments made and ratio laid down in similarly placed matters earlier.
10. It has been observed that essential qualification prescribed for any position under the rules will be applicable at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date if any described under the rules or stated in the advertisement. Any applicant who does not possess prescribed qualifications accordingly is not Item-18 13 OA-255/2015 eligible to be considered for such post. Requirement of prescribed qualifications, cannot be kept open ended as will deny natural justice to many similarly placed candidates and affect the selection process adversely. The prescribed essential qualifications in the present matter with reference to the post of Teacher (Primary) is (i) Sr. Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board;
(ii) Two years diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed. from recognized Institutions or its equivalent;
(iii) candidate must have passed Hindi as a subject at Secondary Level. The applicant herein, has not passed the secondary level exam with Hindi as a subject as on cut-off date i.e. 15.01.2010. The applicant has passed Hindi at secondary level from National Institute of open schooling on a later date than the cut off date of requisite qualification (April, 2010), certificate issued on 25.08.2010.
Item-18 14 OA-255/2015
11. In view of the foregoing facts, the applicant's claim is found to be devoid of merit. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr.Anand S. Khati) (Ashish Kalia)
Member(A) Member(J)
rb