Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Nidhi Kalra vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi Through on 23 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2330/2010
New Delhi this the 23rd day of November, 2011.
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Ms. Nidhi Kalra,
W/o Sh. Parkash Kalra,
R/o H. No. 282 A, Tihar Village,
P.O. Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-18. . Applicant
(through Sh. U. Srivastava, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT Delhi,
New Delhi
2. The Secretary (Services),
Delhi Administration Delhi,
(Services-II Department),
5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi-54.
3. The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi.
4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-32. .. Respondents
(through Mrs. P.K. Gupta, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicant has challenged the vires of the Recruitment Rules (RRs) in respect of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) for Domestic Science. He has made a prayer to set aside the RRs to the extent of method of recruitment prescribed in Column-10 which stipulates that vacancies in that regard should be 100% filled up by direct recruitment for the post TGT (Domestic Science).
2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the RRs for other subjects provides for 70% of the vacancies being filled up through promotion from Assistant Teachers (Primary) having requisite educational qualification. He cites the example of TGT, Modern Indian Language (MIL). Column No.11 of the RR for TGT (MIL) (page-89) reads as follows:-
Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment, or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percent-
age of the vacancies to be filled by various methods.
(i) By promotion from Assistant Teachers of MCD and
Directorate of Education-70% failing which by direct
Recruitment.
(ii) Lab Assistants of Directorate of Education-5% failing which
by Direct Recruitment.
(iii) Direct Recruitment-25%
For promotion from Lab Assistant/Assistant Teacher 5 years regular service in the grade is essential. But, there is no such facility for promotion of Assistant Teachers for the subject of Domestic Science.
2. The respondents have accepted this position and have stated that the RRs for many subjects including MIL provide for promotion-70% from the cadre of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and 5% from the cadre of Laboratory Assistants and the remaining 25% by direct recruitment. But, the RRs for the post of TGT, Domestic Science stipulate that all the vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment. By way of reason, it is stated that there are only 818 posts of TGT for the subject of Domestic Science, whereas for other subjects the number is as large as 26000.
3. It is not appreciated how the number of sanctioned posts has become crucial in deciding that all the posts should be filled up by direct recruitment. If a percentage of posts is ear-marked for promotion in other subjects, the same principle could have been extended to the subject of Domestic Science also, irrespective of the total number of vacancies.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.1988 which prescribed that all the RRs should be reviewed once in five years. Paragraph-5 of this O.M. reads as follows:-
Review of RRs The recruitment rules should be reviewed once in five years with the view to effecting such changes as are necessary to being them in confirming with the changed position, including additions to or reductions in the strength of the lower and higher levels post.
But, apparently, no review in respect of the RRs for TGT, Domestic Science has been undertaken.
5. In our opinion, there is no logic in having a separate method of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science, which is not in line with the normal RRs for other subjects. It is a fact that the Assistant Teachers (Primary) including the applicant do not have any promotional prospect in the entire career of their service life and there are no grounds why Assistant Teachers in Domestic Science as a class should be discriminated against and denied promotion which is legitimately available to the Assistant Teachers in other subjects.
6. Therefore, we find merit in this application. It is not possible for us to sustain the provisions relating to method of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science in the RRs as they are violative of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the respondents did not offer any rational justification to treat the class of Assistant Teachers (Primary), Domestic Science separately from the other Assistant Teachers. Neither is there any justifiable object to be achieved by such classification.
7. We find that the respondents themselves have prescribed that all RRs should be reviewed once in five years. But surprisingly, this instance of invidious discrimination has never been pointed out so far, neither any exercise of such review has been made. We, therefore, direct the respondents to review the provisions of RRs providing the method of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science forthwith so as to bring them at par with TGTs of other subjects. It is further directed that the review shall be completed within three months and the respondent authority shall take consequent action pursuant to the decision in the review in shortest time feasible.
8. The O.A. is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /vinita/