Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
C M Tripathi vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 28 April, 2025
O.A./1830/2010
(Reserved on 23.04.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.1830 of 2010
th
Pronounced on this the 28 Day of April, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Chandra Mauli Tripathi, Son of Shri R.B. Tripathi, Posted as T.G.T.
(Sanskrit) Kendriya Vidyalaya Old Cant, Allahabad. R/o 84-B/2C
Baghambari Gaddi, Allahpur, Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Jitendra Nayak
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, (An Autonomous Original of
Ministry of Human Resources & Development, Department of
Education) through its Commissioner, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Commissioner (Admin.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan,
New Delhi.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Regional
Office, Lucknow.
4. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Old Cant, Allahabad.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Devendra Pratap Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"1.1 Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) from the date other persons Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 1 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 according to list dated 20 July, 2010 have been promoted with all consequential services benefits and to declare the selection list dated 4th July, 2010 as null and void.
1.2 Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
1.3 The cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was appointed on 24.02.2005 on the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit) by direct recruitment. During his service, he has been transferred to several places. While posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Naini, Allahabad, the applicant filled up the form for Limited Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) for the year 2009-2010 through proper channel. The result was declared in April 2010 and the applicant qualified with 60.14% marks and 3rd in the merit list of general category. Thereafter verification was conducted and in the verification memo, the name of the applicant appeared at sl.no. 17. When the main panel was declared on 20.07.2010, the name of the applicant was excluded. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application dated 24.07.2010 before respondent no.2 for inclusion of his name in the main panel but there was no reply. Then the applicant moved an application under RTI Act, 2005 on 27.07.2010 after which a letter dated 18.08.2010 was sent to the applicant stating that as per the recruitment rules in force at the time of inviting the application for P.G.T. (Hindi) through Limited Departmental Examination, T.G.Ts. (Sanskrit) were not eligible for the said post".
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is eligible for the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) as the applicant has completed B.A. with Sanskrit and Hindi in 1998 from Allahabad University. The applicant completed M.A. Sanskrit in 2000 from Allahabad University. The applicant completed M.A. in Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 2 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 Hindi from Rajarshi Tandon University, Allahabad and M.A. (Hindi) is the essential qualification for the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. The applicant has completed B.Ed. also. It is argued that according to the new recruitment rules, the applicant is eligible for the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) but the respondents have excluded the applicant with malafide intention. He submitted that there is no post for P.G.T. (Sanskrit) either promotion or direct. Till 1986, the post of P.G.T. (Sanskrit) existed but thereafter the post was removed and T.G.T. (Sanskrit) was promoted to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) and other subjects as per their eligibility. On N.N. Pandey, initially appointed to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit) was promoted to P.G.T. (Economics).
5. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant has qualified the Limited Departmental Examination but he was not placed in the main panel for the promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) as he was working as T.G.T. (Sanskrit) and as per the Recruitment Rules of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, T.G.T. (Sanskrit) was not considered a feeder post for promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) through Limited Departmental Examination. It is submitted that KVS Headquarters, vide letter dated 02.05.2009 invited applications from eligible T.G.T. for promotion to P.G.T. posts through Limited Departmental Examination. In the aforesaid letter, it was mentioned that the feeder post for the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) was T.G.T. (Hindi). As the applicant was working as T.G.T. (Sanskrit), therefore, he was not eligible for the post of P.G.T. (Hindi). The Principal wrongly forwarded the application of the applicant for promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) through Limited Departmental Examination. Even though the incumbent had the same educational qualifications but did not hold the post of T.G.T. (Hindi), he could not be eligible for the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) to be promoted through Limited Departmental Examination.
6. The applicant has referred to the clause that in case vacancies are not available in a particular subject cadre at the P.G.T. level for Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 3 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 which a senior T.G.T. is eligible, a T.G.T. who may be junior in that particular subject of feeder cadre may be promoted without promotion of senior if vacancies are available in different subject cadres at the P.G.T. level if the junior is eligible for it. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the above clause is for the feeder post of T.G.T. (Maths), T.G.T. (Science), T.G.T. (Social Studies) for which the promotional posts are different as per educational qualifications of teacher. For example, T.G.T. (Maths) could be promoted to P.G.T. (Chemistry/ Maths) through Limited Departmental Examination as per his subject at postgraduate level.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the Board of Governance vide its 88th meeting held on 14.05.2010 made an amendment in the Recruitment Rules for the post of P.G.T. and for the first time T.G.T. (Sanskrit) was added as a feeder post for promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) through Limited Departmental Examination but this amendment became effective from 14.05.2010 whereas the applicant appeared in the Limited Departmental Examination held on 19.12.2009. Thus, at the time of appearing of the applicant in the Limited Departmental Examination, the new Rule had not come into force, hence, the applicant could not get the benefit of the new rule. It is further argued that Shri N.N. Pandey, whose example has been taken by the applicant, was promoted as per Recruitment Rules in force during 1994-95.
8. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the then principle forwarded the form of the applicant and another principle also forwarded the form of candidate of T.G.T. (Sanskrit) for the promotion to the post of P.G.T.(Hindi) through Limited Departmental Examination and it is also further submitted that one C.C. Yadav found a place at Sl. No. 17 of the merit list through Limited Departmental Examination held on 19/20 December, 2009 and found place at Sl. No. 15 of the main Panel also and he was promoted from T.G.T. (Sanskrit) to P.G.T. (Hindi) and joined on 23.10.10.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 4 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the competent authority has taken the decision to delete the name of Shri C.C. Yadav at Sl. No. 15 of the main panel of promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi) through limited departmental examination for the year 2009-10 as he was working as T.G.T. (Sanskrit).
10. Further averment made by learned counsel for the applicant is that before the year 2008 the word 'Common Feeder' was used in the promotion rule but by the Promotion Rule, 2008 the promotional post PGT (Sanskrit) and word "Common" were deleted, therefore, according to Rule, 2008, the applicant is eligible for promotion from TGT (Sanskrit) to PGT (Hindi) because word common was deleted and no promotional post as PGT (Sanskrit) for TGT (Sanskrit) exists. It is submitted that C. C. Yadav is promoted according to rule and till now any action has not been taken against C. C. Yadav who was promoted from TGT (Sanskrit) to PGT (Hindi) and he is presently posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hamirpur and any error has not been committed. One Shri Rajni Kant Jha was also promoted from TGT (Social Study) to PGT (Hindi) and he was placed at Serial No. 11 of the merit list through limited departmental examination held on 19th/20th December, 2009 and was placed at serial no. 10 of the main penal and joined on 25.10.2010 at Kendriya Vidyalaya.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that Shri C.V. Yadav was reverted vide office memorandum dated 11.01.2012. However, the said order was set aside by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal and later on upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Chandigarh. It is submitted that the case of Shri C.C. Yadav is different from the present case. Even the case of Shri Rajni Kant shall be reviewed if not found in consonance with the recruitment rules and necessary action will be taken.
12. It is pointed out that a fresh notification was issued on 10.08.2011.
The applicant being an eligible candidate applied for the same and after being successful, a letter dated 03.08.2013 was issued for Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 5 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 relieving the applicant from TGT (Sanskrit) to PGT (Hindi) at KV Silchar. A memorandum dated 04.02.2014 was issued whereby the place of posting of the applicant was modified as to Old Cantt Allahabad. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the applicant was given promotion after TGT (Sanskrit) was included as feeder post for promotion to PGT (Hindi). Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been promoted from TGT (Sanskrit) to PGT (Hindi) very late though his juniors were promoted earlier as such the applicant has been placed in a great loss.
13. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgements to consolidate his arguments:
(i) O.A.No.74/HP/2012 (Chhabil Chandra Yadav vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ors) decided by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 20.12.2013. The decision is as under:
"12. In the light of what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a similar matter and in view of the fact that after amendment in the relevant Recruitment Rules, the TGT (Sanskrit) with master degree in Sanskrit have been held eligible or promotion to the post of PGT (Hindi) and also that the applicant has been continuing on the promotional post for the last two years, the applicant is held entitled to continue on the post of PGT (Hindi). The impugned order dated 11.01.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed. No costs."
(ii) CWP No.11368 of 2014 (O&M) (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Chhabil Chandra Yadav and another) dated 30.05.2014 wherein the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged. Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the CWP is as under:
" We find that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly untenable. If petitioners themselves have decided that a TGT (Sanskrit) candidate is eligible for the post of PGT (Hindi), it does not seem logical to have a cut off date not to treat TGT (Sanskrit) for promotion for a previous Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 6 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 year. The decision cannot be restricted to particular years. It may be noticed that the applicant was in fact promoted on 27.9.2010 i.e. within the year to which the circular relates as well.
In view thereof, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal which may warrant any interference by this Court.
Dismissed."
15. Learned counsel for the respondents have referred to the following case laws in support of their contention:
(i) Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shifana P.S. vs. The State of Kerala and others Civil Appeal No. 4468 of 2013 dated 06.08.2024 reported in 2024(8) SCC 309, the relied upon para is quoted below:
"13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold such a degree. It is the case of the appellant that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as equivalent to a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). However, the said argument does not hold water and is misconceived.
14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others2 held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.
(emphasis supplied)
15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of India and Others3, a three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. 2 (2019) 2 SCC 404 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343 Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another4 held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published.
16. The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10th October, 2011 verifying that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) course of the said University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc(Chemistry) course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV(supra). In view of the settled principles of law flowing from Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 7 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 the above precedents, we are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008.
17. As a result, we find no justifiable reason so as to interfere with the judgment dated 16th October, 2012 rendered by the High Court.
18. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs."
(ii) Judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Kavita Sonkar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others Writ-A No. - 959 of 2022 dated 21.03.2022. The para referred to is quotes below:
"9. The recruitment/selection process should be made strictly in accordance with terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar And Others vs Government Of NTC Delhi reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner possess the DCA Certificate, which is not equivalent "O" Level certificate awarded by the DOEACC society or a qualification equivalent thereto, therefore, he is not eligible or qualified for the post of Assistant Review Officer as per the prescribed qualification mentioned in the advertisement, hence it would be impermissible to consider the petitioner as being eligible for the said post and relief as prayed has also not been granted.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed."
(iii) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade; Civil Appeal Nos. 4597 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 8494 of 2018) dated 03.05.2019 reported in 2019(6) SCC 362. The respondents have relied on the following paragraph:
"10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 8 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
...
15. The view taken by the Tribunal finds approval in Secretary (Health), Department of Health & F.W. and Another vs. Dr. Anita Puri and Others, 1996 (6) SCC 282, observing as follows: "7. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was published calling for applications from the candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it was clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also stipulated that preference should be given for higher dental qualification. There is also no dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification than the minimum qualification required for the post and Respondent 1 was having that degree. The question then arises is whether a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as of right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher qualified candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed....... In this view of the matter, the High Court in our considered opinion was wholly in error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Government indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification person would get some preference. The said conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is wholly unsustainable and must be reversed."
(iv) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of District Collector and Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi; Civil Appeal No. 2559 of 1988 dated 20.04.1990 reported in 1990(3) SCC 655. Paragraph 6 relied upon by the respondents reads under:
"6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertise- ment. It amounts to a Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 9 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudu- lent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact.
7. We are, however, informed that the respondent subsequent- ly acquired another degree in M.A. with second class and has qualified herself to be appointed to the said post. Whatever the merits of the decision given by the Tribunal, we cannot forget that she was entitled to rely upon it till this time where she had succeeded. She was not allowed to join service on January 2, 1986 and thereafter she had approached the,Tribunal in January 1987. The decision of the Tribunal was of 31st August, 1987 and thereafter the present Civil Appeal was pending in this Court from December 1987 till this day. Considering the fact that she is compelled to serve, that she has acquired the requisite qualification, that today she may be overaged for the post and the further fact that many who were underqualified were appointed to the post earlier, we feel that it will be unjust to deprive her of the post at this stage. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal but allow the appeal partial- ly and direct that the respondent should be appointed in the post from the beginning of the ensuing academic year 1990-
91. Since Shri Madhav Reddy contended that there is no vacant post at present, we further direct that, if neces- sary, a post be created to accommodate her. She will, howev- er, not be entitled to any benefits including back wages till her appointment."
(v) Judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others; Writ -C No.- 33392 of 2015 decided on 01.07.2015 which is quoted below:
"Prescribing the qualifications for a post is the function of the appointing authority. Ordinarily, the Court cannot determine the issue of equivalence or stipulate the qualifications for the effective discharge of duties of a post can be equally met by another suitable qualification. The State which fills up a post is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as it considers necessary and proper for the proper discharge of the duties attached to the post. These are not matters on which judicial review can be exercised. The Court may interfere only in those cases where the qualifications prescribed are ultra vires a legislative enactment or where it is demonstrated that the prescribed qualifications are extraneous to the duties and functions attached to the post. Such is not the case here.
In these circumstances, it is not proper for the Court to accept the submission of the petitioner that the qualifications which he holds should be treated as equivalent to the qualifications as prescribed qualifications. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the petition.
Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 10 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010
(vi) Judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Asheesh Kumar and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others;
Writ A No.6083 of 2020 dated 11.11.2020 reported in 2021(2) All. Lj 323. Herein, the Court has come to the following conclusion:
"As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioners holding a degree in General English were clearly not qualified to participate in the recruitment process. The mere fact that on earlier occasions holders of such a degree were possibly permitted to participate in selection or came to be appointed as TGT teachers can neither erase the evident ineligibility of the petitioners here in light of the plain language employed in the advertisement nor can that mistake or error on the part of the respondents confer on them a positive right to move further in the selection process. The plea of discrimination advanced in that respect as noted above is clearly misconceived. A mistake or illegality committed in the past cannot constitute a ground for extending benefit or relief to the petitioners who are otherwise ineligible. Selection in respect of public employment must be tested strictly in accordance with the command of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court has no hesitation in holding that the acceptance of such a plea would be wholly contrary to the letter and spirit of those constitutional provisions.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds the petitioners disentitled to any relief. The writ petition stands dismissed."
(vii) Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the case of Saurabh Saxena Vs. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Skill; Special Appeal Defective No.- 10 of 2025 [Neutral Citation No.- 2025:AHC-LKO:2355-DB]. Para 16 of the same is reproduced below:
"16.Further, as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question of equivalence of qualification in the matter of examining the eligibility for the purpose of employment, is to be decided by the employer and the Courts cannot treat any qualification to be equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in the Rules and mentioned in the advertisement. In case the appellant's claim of equivalence of qualification is allowed, all other similarly situated persons, who did not apply as they did not possess the qualification prescribed by the Rules and mentioned in the advertisement, would suffer discrimination and injustice."
(viii) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji University, Kolhapur vs. Sangameshwar Education Society; Civil Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 11 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 Appeal No. 3241 of 2000 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18458 of 1999) dated 05.05.2000 reported in 2000(9) SCC 401 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "As in our view, no rights can be said to have accrued on the selected personnel until and unless the selection made by the Selection Committee is approved by the competent authority, and on the basis of such approval order is communicated to the person concerned."
(ix) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr vs Dr. Vinay Kumar & Ors; Civil Appeal No. 4150 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15749 of 2021 dated 18.05.2022 reported in 2022(2) MPWN 121. The relied upon portion is quoted below:
"(6) The cardinal principle we must bear in mind is that this is a case of direct recruitment. A candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end. Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right. This is, however, different, no doubt, from holding that the employer is free to act in an arbitrary manner. But, at the same time, in the first place, direction which is given by the High Court to conclude the recruitment within 45 days is clearly untenable. This is for the reason that, as noticed, the advertisement dated 01.03.2018 was put on hold on 21.03.2018 before the last date indicated for filing the CA NO. 4150 OF 2022 (@SLP (C)No. 15749/2021) application by advertisement dated 01.03.2018. As the very advertisement was put on hold, it is quite likely that any candidate who may have being desirous of applying, may not have applied being discouraged by the fact that the advertisement has been put on hold. Therefore, the direction to conclude the proceedings within 45 days is unsupportable.
(7) Question would arise as to whether the direction could be given to proceed with the recruitment process by giving peremtory direction to the appellant. Here again, we cannot be oblivious to the first principle which we have indicated viz., the absence of any legal right with the candidate who has merely made an application. At the same time, we do feel trammeled by the fact that the case which is sought to be set up viz., that there may not be any need for filling up the post, was not as such set up before the High Court or the Tribunal. Such an attempt is being made before this Court. In such circumstances, we are of the view that a fair and time bound decision must be taken by the appellants not oblivious to the fact that persons have applied and they would also look forward to a fair treatment at the hands of the body like the appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. We set aside the judgment and we direct the appellants Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 12 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 to take a decision bearing in mind all relevant aspects within a period of two months from today and if it is decided to fill up the post in question, the needful CA NO. 4150 OF 2022 (@SLP (C)No. 15749/2021) shall be done within such time so that all interested parties may apply pursuant thereto.
We make it clear that the ground as such taken that since direct recruitment could be resorted to only if there is nobody to be promoted and the vacancy stands filled up by granting of benefits to the fourth respondent under the DACP, will not be available to the appellant. In other words, the vacancy as such would be treated is available for direct recruitment for scheduled castes. As to whether it should be filled up is of course another matter. The appeal is allowed as above."
(x) Judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Kavit Sonkar vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others; Writ- A No.- 959 of 2022 dated 21.03.2022 wherein it has again been held that it is not the function of the Court to adjudge or evaluate the suitability or desirability of a particular qualification that may be prescribed.
(xi) Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Soni vs. State of Rajasthan and ors; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27633/2017; dated 28.03.2023 [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271]. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the said judgement as under:
"But unfortunately for the petitioner, the question of law on the issue of eligibility of persons holding Bachelor degree in Education through the distance education mode is already settled by this Court. Therefore, if other people have secured the benefit of an order, those orders are not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. It is well settled that there cannot be equality in the matter of illegality. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
16. So far as the case laws relied upon by the respondents are concerned, the case laws quoted in para 15(iv), 15 (ix) and 15(xi) are factually irrelevant to this case. The case law quoted in para 15(vi) can be summarised to the observation that a mistake or illegality committed in the past cannot constitute a ground for extending benefit or relief to the candidates who are otherwise ineligible. Para 15 (viii) says that no rights can be said to have accrued on the selected personnel until and unless the selection Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 13 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 made by the Selection Committee is approved by the competent authority, and on the basis of such approval order is communicated to the person concerned. The sum and substance of the rest of the case laws quoted in para 15 above is that a court cannot interfere and declare any other qualification as equivalent to the prescribed qualifying criteria and that the essential qualification is for the employer to decide. In the present case, the question to be decided is whether the qualifying criteria prescribed by the respondents themselves is applicable to the applicant at a particular point of time or not and the case laws cited by the respondents can only be examined in the light of the issue under question. Thus, the case laws cited by the respondents do not lend much support to them so far as the issue involved in this case is concerned.
17. Perusal of the notification dated 10.08.2011 for the Limited Departmental Examination for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 annexed as annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 21.03.2024 filed by learned counsel for the applicant stipulates that the feeder posts, promotional posts, educational qualification and eligibility criteria for various posts shall be as per Recruitment Rules effective from 01.08.2008. The same recruitment rule effective from 01.08.2008 tabulated in the aforesaid notification shows clearly at sl. no.2 that Feeder Post for promotion to PGT (Hindi) is TGT (Hindi/Sanskrit). The applicant had qualified the limited Departmental Examination in the year 2009-2010. The applicant has been disqualified for the reason that he was a TGT (Sanskrit) and TGT (Sanskrit) was not in the feeder category for promotion to PGT (Hindi) when the notification was issued for the recruitment for 2009-10 while as per the Recruitment Rules issued subsequently and effective from 01.08.2008, TGT (Sanskrit) is also a feeder post for promotion to PGT (Hindi) and the applicant also fulfilled all other educational qualifications. Here the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Chandigarh in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Chhabil Chandra Yadav and another (supra) (quoted in para 14(ii)) lend support to Digitally MADHU signed by KUMAR MADHU I KUMAR Page 14 of 15 I O.A./1830/2010 the case of the applicant. The Hon'ble High Court has observed that "If petitioners themselves have decided that a TGT (Sanskrit) candidate is eligible for the post of PGT (Hindi), it does not seem logical to have a cut off date not to treat TGT (Sanskrit) for promotion for a previous year. The decision cannot be restricted to particular years. It may be noticed that the applicant was in fact promoted on 27.9.2010 i.e. within the year to which the circular relates as well". The case of Chhabil Chandra Yadav vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ors (supra) quoted in para 14 (i) decided by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, accordingly, supports the case of the applicant fully in favour of his claim. Thus, the argument of the respondents that the applicant was not eligible as per the recruitment rules for promotion to PGT (Hindi) does not hold water since the Recruitment Rules as per which TGT (Sanskrit) is also a feeder cadre for PGT (Hindi) was applicable at the time when the applicant qualified the Limited Departmental Examination.
18. In view of the above, the O.A. is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed with the direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to notionally promote the applicant to the post of PGT (Hindi) from the date other persons according to the list dated 20.07.2010 have been promoted granting him all consequential benefits accruing therefrom. The said exercise should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMAR MADHU
I KUMAR Page 15 of 15
I