Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neeraj Rani vs Gnctd on 27 March, 2025
1
OA No. 2078/2023
Item No. 28 (C-4)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A. No. 2078/2023
Order reserved on: 07.02.2025
Order pronounced on: 27.03.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
(1) Neeraj Rani, Roll No. 412040104359
D/o Sh. Om Parkash,
R/o 126, Village Liwan, PO- Rathdhana, Sonipat,
Haryana, Pin Code- 131029.
(2) Soniya, Roll No. 412040103135
W/o Sh. Amit Kumar,
R/o 471, Main Bus Stand Wali Gali, Village & Post
Office Palla, Delhi 110036.
(3) Monika, Roll No. 411040104836
D/o Sh. Rajander Singh,
R/o Shakti Nagar, Street-7, Bahadurgarh, Haryana,
Pin Code-124507.
(4 ) Jyoti Kamra, Roll No. 412040104405
D/o Sh. Gopal Kamra,
R/o E-1/7/31, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi, Pin Code-
110089.
(5) Sarda, Roll No. 315040100954
D/o Sh. Turshan Pal,
R/o 114, Near Bus Stand, V.P.O. - Gawalison, District
Jhajjar, Haryana-124103
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Vikrant Chawla)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
2
OA No. 2078/2023
Item No. 28 (C-4)
Through the Chief Secretary. New Secretariat, New
Delhi-110001
2. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director Old Secretariat, New Delhi-110054
3. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board,
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Anand Vihar,
Delhi-110092
4. Arpita Gupta,
Presently working as TGT Social Science Emp. ID-
20229047
Posted at No. 2, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Sagarpur,
Delhi-110046 (School ID-1821017)
5. Komal,
Presently working as TGT Social Science Emp. ID-
20230164
Posted at GGSSS, Gautampuri, Delhi-110053 (School
ID-1105023)
6. Simran,
Presently working as TGT Social Science Emp. ID-
20231897
Posted at Govt. Co-Ed Secondary School, Sec-15,
Rohini, Delhi-110089
(School ID-1413320)
7. Payal Gupta
Presently working as TGT Social Science, Emp. ID-
20231352
Posted at GGSSS.
Tukhmirpur, Delhi-110094
(School ID-1104262)
8. Vandana Jain
Presently working as TGT Social Science
Emp. ID-20232194
Posted at Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Dallupura, New
Delhi-110096
(School ID-1002027)
(Respondents No. 4 to 8 through Director, Directorate
of Education, Old Secretariat, New Delhi - 110054)
3
OA No. 2078/2023
Item No. 28 (C-4)
9. All such other ineligible candidates who have been
appointed to the post of TGT Social Science (Female)
Post Code 40/21 (Advertisement No.02/2021), as
described in para (1) of the present Ο.Α.
(Through Director, Directorate of Education, Old
Secretariat, New Delhi - 110054
...Respondents
(By Advocate:Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. H A Khan)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J) The present OA has been filed by applicants, 5 in number, aggrieved of the Respondent No. 2 i.e. DoE, in not offering the appointment to the applicants. Greivance of the applicants is that even though they are fully eligible, since they are CTET qualified in Social Science they have been denied appointment. Whereas others who have qualified CTET in other subjects have been offered appointments to the post of Social Science. The following relief has been sought by the applicants:-
"i. Call for records of the case;
ii. Quash and set aside the Appointment Orders [Annexure A-1 (Colly)] in respect of the post of TGT Social Science (Female) [Post Code 40/21] notified in the Advertisement No.02/2021 published by the Respondent No. 3, to the extent the same appoints ineligible candidates as referred to in Para (1) of the present O.A. 4 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) iii. Pass an order directing the Respondent No. 2 to declare the appointment of all the aforesaid ineligible candidates as null and void and to appoint only those female candidates to the post of TGT Social Science (Female) under Post Code 40/21 (Advertisement No.02/2021) who hold a valid CТЕТ eligibility certificate in Social Science before the crucial date of eligibility, such as the Applicants herein, along with all consequential benefits;
iv. Pass an order directing the Respondent No. 2 to complete the process of scrutiny / re-scrutiny of documents/ dossiers expeditiously and further to extend the validity of the Waiting Panel and Reserve Panel in respect of post of TGT Social Science (Female) under Post Code 40/21 (Advertisement No.02/2021) for a period of another six months in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 2 has failed to remove the ineligible candidates by proper scrutiny of the documents which needs to be done now and is likely to take a considerable time;
v. Award costs to the Applicants;
vi. Pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The applicants, pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/21 published by the DSSSB had applied under Post Code 40/21. The educational qualifications as per the advertisement are as under:-
1. "A Bachelor's Degree (Honours/Pass) or equivalent from a recognized University having secured 45% marks in aggregate, in two school subjects of which at least one out of the following should have been at the elective level:-
A. English B. Mathematics C. Natural/Physical Science D. Social Science Note:- Main subjects for (1) TGT (Natural Science/ Phy. Science) shall be Physics, Chemistry Biology, Botany 5 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) and Zoology (ii) Social Science :-History/Political Science/ Economics / Business Studies/ Sociology/Geography/ Psychology.
Provided further that the requirement as to minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate at graduation level shall be relaxable in case of
(a) Candidates who passes a Post Graduate Qualification in any of the teaching subjects listed above.
(b) Belonging to SC/ST
(c) Physically handicapped candidates
2. Degree/Diploma in Training Education.
3. Working knowledge of Hindi
4. Should have qualified CTET from CBSE.
N.B :- "The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RR's for atleast 02 years during the Graduation course. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different Universities"
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had participated in the recruitment exercise conducted by the DSSSB.
Upon declaration of the results, applicants were placed in the waiting panel. The applicants were hopeful that they would be offered the appointment; however, that never came to be.
3. By way of the present OA, the applicants have challenged the selection of other candidates who have been offered the appointment above the applicants even though they were not fully qualified since they did not possess CTET in Social Science.
6OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) Learned counsel for the applicant also relies upon the order passed in Ms. Geetanjali Vs. DSSSB in OA No. 926/2017pronounced on 09.08.2018and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No. 12920/2019 - Anuja Sharma Vs. UoI dated 19.12.2019. In Para 7 of the same, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:-
""7. It is the case of the petitioner that she was misled by term No. 4 of the advertisement which reads as under:-
"4. Should have qualified CTET from CBSE"
Without specifying that the CTET qualification should have been in Science or Social Science. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is however without any force. Having made an application for CTET (Social Science) the petitioner, who is already a Guest Teacher teaching Social Science, ought to have known that the CTET qualification required would also be in the relevant subjects of History, Political Science, Economics, Business Studies, Sociology, Geography and Psychology; and not in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany and Zoology. If the CTET qualification was generic and not specific, there would not have been a CTET (Science) and a separate CTET (Social Science). To that extent term No.4 of the advertisement must be read meaningfully and so read, was clear and unambiguous"
Thus, the applicant submitted that meaningfully read the requirement of the advertisement should be read as CTET (Social Science), 7 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) therefore it is the applicants who should be offered appointments over and above the private respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the Advertisement and submitted that in Term 4, it is stated that the candidate should have a qualified CTET from CBSE. The Hon'ble High Court in Anuja Sharma (Supra) has held that this Term 4 of the advertisement must be read meaningfully. Meaning thereby that in the case of appointment for TGT (Social Science), it is to be read as CTET from CBSE in any of the Social Science subjects such as History/PoliticalScience/Economics/Business Studies/Sociology/Geography and Psychology.
He submits that the Private Respondent Nos. 4- 6 who have been appointed are not in possession of the CTET in Social Science. They have CTET in Mathematics and other subjects which are not co-related with the Social Science.
Only because the applicants were lower in merit, 8 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) they have been ignored, whereas candidates possessing CTET in other subjects besides Social Science have been offered the appointment.
5. Hence, by way of the instant OA, the applicants are challenging the appointments of all such ineligible candidates over and above the applicants. It is submitted that once the ineligible candidates are excluded from the merit list the applicants would automatically come into their own merit.
6. The Respondents i.e. DOE have filed their counter affidavit. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated as under:-
"4.4 That the content of Para 4.3 do not call for any reply only to the extent of same are matter of record and anything contrary is denied. However, it is submitted that the name of the Applicant No. 1 appeared with the Roll no. 4120401104359 appears in the Waiting List of the candidates at Sr. No. UR-WL-66. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant No.2 Ms. Soniya does not exist in the Waiting Panel List. It is further submitted that the Applicant No. 3 appeared with Roll no 411040104836 and her name appears at Sr. No. UR-WL-64 in Waiting Panel List. It is further submitted that the applicant No. 4 appeared with Roll no 412040104405 and her name appeared at Sr. No. UR-WL-62 in Waiting Panel List. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant No.5 does 9 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) not exist in the Waiting Panel List. It is pertinent to mention here that the Answering Respondents have been picked up/ taken up the candidates upto Sr. No. UR-WL-58 from Waiting Panel List against the cancellations of candidature of the candidates till the validity of Waiting Pannel List upto 23.08.2023. In view of above, the applicants No. 1, 3 & 4 were not considered for the post of TGT (Social Science)."
He submitted that the candidates who fulfilled the RR's for the aforesaid post were selected by the Answering Respondents strictly on the basis of the RR's. The RR's of TGT (Social Science) (Female) Post Code 40/21, require that the candidates should have qualified CTET from CBSE. There is no requirement in RR's for CTET (Social Science). Moreover, CTET is an eligibility test, conducted to determine whether the candidate is fit to teach classes from 1 to 8.
7. The DSSSB have also filed their short affidavit and have stated that they are only the recruiting agency, and their role is to select the candidates based on the requisition as per the RRs. They have conducted this selection exercise as per the RRs, hence, all those candidates in possession of the 10 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) qualifications,namely CTET from CBSE have been selected and placed in the merit list as per their merit.
8. In rejoinder, counsel for the applicant has argued that while conducting the recruitment exercise, both the DSSSB and the DoE have selected those candidates who have qualified CTET from CBSE in any of the subjects. He submitted that the respondents have failed miserably in keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in Geetanjali Vs. DSSSB (supra), the respondents ought to have made the necessary changes in the RRs and in conducting the recruitment exercise without making the necessary amendments, the respondents have shown lack of regard in following the orders of this Tribunal.
9. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.
11OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4)
10. The RRs for this Recruitment exercise, as published in the advertisement and noted by us above are quite clear. CTET from CBSE is an admissible and essential qualification. Theselected candidates are in possession of the qualification and therefore cannot be termed ineligible, based on the RRs. As per the RRs they are quite eligible and they are higher in merit so they have a right to be selected.
11. The applicants' grouse is that the ratio in Geetanjali (supra) and Anuja Sharma (supra) has not been implemented. That implementation has to be done at the policy level, requiring the RRs to be amended first. As per the applicants, the respondents have failed miserably in implementing/following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the said judgment. InGeetanjali (supra), the applicant was an aspirant of the post of TGT (Social Science), however, she was in possession CTET eligibility in a different subject than that of TGT (Social Science). 12 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) Therein, the Tribunal had held that since the applicant did not possess a CTET qualification in Social Science, the OA was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant following the ratio laid down in this Judgment stated that once the Tribunal had given its mind that the candidate in possession of CTET in the specific subject would be considered suitable for employment against the TGT post then the respondents ought to have amended the recruitment/eligibility conditions as set forth by them. However, the respondents, by not taking steps to amend the RRs, have flouted the ratio in Geetanjali (supra).
Thus, the applicants in the instant OA have claimed the relief as they are in possession of CTET in Social Science.
12. We have also considered this judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant in detail. The argument concerning 13 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) the ratio in Geetanjali (supra) is acceptable; however, it is also a fact that the respondents are yet to take steps to amend their RRs. In the present case, the RRs as they stood earlier, still remain. Even the advertisement, which was widely published, states that CTET from CBSE is acceptable. The decision to amend the RRs either due to administrative reasons or due to any decision or nudge from the Tribunal is purely a policy/administrative matter, and the final decision lies with the respondents'/ department. In our view, by advertising the vacancies to be filled by unamended RRs, the respondents have taken a conscious decision to undertake the recruitment exercise as per the earlier rules.
13. Once the advertisement has been published, it is a well-settled principle in law and service jurisprudence that the dates, timelines and eligibility conditions in competitive examinations for Government recruitment are rigorous and 14 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) sacrosanct andthe same cannot be compromised and become flexible and loose. This issue is no longer res integra but already decided as per the ratio given in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifuduallah Khan & Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85.
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation a in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the 15 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) relevant rules and/or in the b advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list."
These rules, if compromised, can open a Pandora's Box and a floodgate of litigations by other candidates who adhered to the rules as prescribed in the advertisement.
14. It is also pertinent to note the cardinal principle that the candidate only applies for a post fully aware of the terms and conditions of the recruitment exercise as per the advertisement, cannot turn back and cry foul if he is not selected.
15. The applicants applied for the post fully aware that they would be competing with candidates possessing CTET from all subjects. If they wanted the competition be restricted to the candidates possessing CTET in Social Science alone, then they ought to have approached the Tribunal before participating. Now, participating 16 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) and asking that the candidatures of those candidates who have got merit higher than them be rejected, is not permissible by law.In Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan 2016 (1) SCC 454 & Ors decided on 20 August, 2015 this has been reiterated. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein below:-
"20. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
21. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five Madras Inst.Of Dev.
Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015 members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:
"15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains 17 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: "It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point."
22. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:
"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."18 OA No. 2078/2023
Item No. 28 (C-4)
16. In the case of open merit selection, we cannot now direct the respondents to act in any manner that is against the declared terms and conditions as specified in the advertisement. Any such direction today would amount to the respondents diverting/digressing from their own declared terms and conditions. Based on which, thousands of other candidates have participated in the selection process, and it would amount to injustice to all those other candidates.
17. In view of what has been discussed herein above, it is evident that the respondents have adhered to the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement, which were published by the existing, unamended Recruitment Rules. The applicants, having voluntarily participated in the recruitment process, cannot now challenge the process or seek alterations based on the ratio laid down in previous judgments, especially when no formal amendment to the Recruitment Rules has been made. Therefore, in the absence 19 OA No. 2078/2023 Item No. 28 (C-4) of a prayer for amendment of the Recruitment Rules and considering the established legal precedents, we find no merit in the applicants' claims. The case is accordingly dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/