Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Mohammed Bakher M vs The Administrator on 30 March, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 688 of 2009
Wednesday, this the 30th day of March, 2011
Hon'ble Mr. George Paracken, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
Mohammed Bakher M.,
Mathil (House),
Opp. Massif Court, Androth Island,
Lakshadweep. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. Muhammed Shafi M. - Not present)
V e r s u s
1. The Administrator, UT of Lakshadweep,
Kavarathi, UT of Lakshadweep.
2. The Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
UT of Lakshadweep, Kavarathi-682555.
3. Sulfikarali K.M., Kannathimmada House,
Andrott, UT of Lakshadweep.
4. A.K. Abdul Gafoor,
Aulakadlyapada House,
Kavaratti, UT of Lakshadweep.
5. Saheera Beegum,
Arakkalar, Kavaratti,
UT of Lakshadweep.
6. Hidayathulla. P, TGT. GHS,
Kadmat. UT of Lakshadweep. ..... Respondents
[By Advocate - Mr. S. Radhakrishnan (R1&2) and
Mr. V. Varghese (R4)]
This application having been heard on 30.3.2011, the Tribunal on the same
day delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. George Paracken, Judicial Member -
The applicant is one of the candidates who applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher, Economics notified vide notification Annexure A-1 issued by the respondents. The qualification prescribed for the post was (a) Master's Degree in the subject concerned (b) degree or recognized Diploma in education or three years experience of teaching intermediate or higher classes or five years experience teaching in high school classes. The said notification also states that the selection of the candidates will be purely on academic merit of the applicants while also giving consideration to the applicant's higher qualifications and experience for the job. The private respondents Nos. 3 & 4 are the selected candidates. The 5th respondent is in the waiting list and the 6th respondent is also included in the rank list as 4th. The contention of the applicant is that when he had M.Phil degree, non-consideration of the same by the respondents in awarding the marks is arbitrary and illegal. According to the applicant, if his M.Phil qualification were taken in to consideration, he would have been number 2 in the select list with an aggregate of 56.4 marks.
2. The contention of the official respondents 1&2 is that the applicant had M.Phil degree in Hindi subject while the post for which he has applied is Post Graduate Teacher in Economics. They have also submitted that according to the Annexure A-1 notification it was made clear that the Masters degree should be in the subject concerned. Therefore, his M.Phil degree in a totally different subject cannot be considered as a qualification for determination in the final select list.
3. The 4th respondent who has been selected in the aforesaid post has also filed their reply. His contention is also similar to those of the official respondents.
4. We have considered the rival contentions. It is a matter of commonsense that for appointment as a Post Graduate Teacher in a particular subject, one's qualification should also be in the same subject at least in a related subject as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. That was the reason why it was specifically stated in the notification that the candidate should have Masters degree in the subject concerned. The applicant has applied for the post of P.G.T. Economics, but his M.Phil degree is in a totally unrelated subject, i.e. Hindi. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the applicant that his M.Phil degree in Hindi should have been considered for determining his eligibility for the purpose of selection to the post of P.G.T. Economics.
5. We, in the above circumstances, dismiss this Original Application. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (GEORGE PARACKEN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"