Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through vs Hira Singh Rawat on 22 September, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
RA NO. 82/2009
OA NO. 531/2008
this the 22nd day of September, 2009
Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman
Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A)
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
The Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya,
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Social Welfare Department
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
Delhi.
3. The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi.
4. The Dy. Director of Education,
(Distt. West-B) Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
G-Block, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-18.
Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita)
V E R S U S
Hira Singh Rawat
s/o Sh. D.S.Rawat
r/o B-5, Nirmal Chhaya Staff Complex,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman When we disposed of the Original Application vide orders dated 17.10.2008, there was no dispute on the fact that the applicant was indeed promoted as Lab Assistant, but was not allowed to join duties only for the reason that he was not matriculate. There may have been some dispute of the applicant having cleared the matriculation examination at the time when the office prepared a list of Group D employees of Government of NCT of Delhi, and passed order of promotion of the applicant from Caretaker to Lab Assistant, pursuant to direction given by this Tribunal in OA No.367/2006, but at the time when arguments were heard, there was no dispute that the applicant had indeed cleared the matriculation examination. Even though, there was dispute with regard to earlier examination passed by the applicant with science or otherwise, once, the applicant later passed yet another examination with science and certificate to that effect was annexed with the rejoinder filed by the applicant, there was no dispute as well that the applicant had passed matriculation with science. We may mention that in the OA the applicant had mentioned that he had passed high school examination (matriculation) from UP Board in the year 1983 with five subjects, i.e., Hindi, English, General Maths, Economics and Civics. He also averred that even though, he had passed his secondary school examination (matriculation) from UP Board, he again appeared in four subjects from National Open School, Delhi, i.e., English, Science, Hindi and Mathematics, after taking permission from the department in May, 1992. Insofar as, the subject science is concerned, he had cleared the examination. Despite that, the grievance of the applicant was that even though selected, when he was relieved from the Department of Social Welfare and he reported for duty on the post of Lab Assistant on 14.8.2007 in the office of Education Officer West-B, he was not allowed to join. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents it was inter alia pleaded that in May, 1992, the applicant appeared in secondary school examination from National Open School, Delhi with English, Science, Hindi and Maths, and that as per marks-sheet, he failed in maths and re-appeared in the said subject in November, 1992, but once again failed and could not be awarded secondary school certificate from National Open School. It was then pleaded that in 1993, the applicant appeared in senior secondary school examination from National Open School with Hindi, Economics, Pol. Sc. and English (non-science subjects) and passed the said examination. In short, therefore, the defence projected by the respondents was that in the examination in which the applicant appeared in 1992, he had failed in maths and thus could not be said to have passed the secondary school examination or matriculation, as the case may be, whereas the examination he had passed in 1993, was not with subject science. As mentioned above, however, the applicant filed rejoinder, wherein he stated that he had again appeared in the matriculation examination with permission of the department and passed the same with all subjects including science, from National Open School. Copy of the certificate had been enclosed with rejoinder as Annexure R-1. The same would show the applicant to have cleared matriculation with the subjects Hindi, Social Science, Economics, Science and English. Even though, whereas the applicant was clamouring for his appointment on the post of Lab Assistant from the date he sought to join the said post but was disallowed, counsel for the applicant pleaded that there was no dispute with regard to the applicant having passed matriculation with science from 5.9.2008 when he was issued the matriculation certificate. In the scenario as mentioned above, the limited question for decision was as to from what date the applicant should be permitted to join the post for which he was duly selected, and yet not allowed to join. We may only mention that as per circulars/letters relied upon by the respondents, if a person may not be matriculate with science, and he has undergone a three months orientation course in science conducted by the Directorate of Education, he would be eligible.
2. In the limited controversy with regard to the date from when the applicant should be allowed to join as Lab Assistant, Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the applicant, in all fairness, stated that the applicant be permitted to join from the date he passed matriculation examination, i.e., 5.9.2008. The OA was thus partly allowed. This order came to be challenged by the respondents by way of CWP No.8446/2009 before the Honble Delhi High Court. Perusal of order dated 23.4.2009 passed by the High Court would reveal that even though, the case was called twice over, no one chose to appear on behalf of the respondents, i.e., petitioners in the writ petition. It appears that there must have been an averment in the writ petition to the effect that the applicant had not passed matriculation with science even now, and that being the essential eligibility criteria, no relief could be granted to the applicant. The Honble High Court from reading of our order came to observe that this aspect of the case, i.e., the applicant had not passed matriculation with science was not specifically brought to our notice. That being so, the respondents, i.e., petitioners in the writ were permitted to file review application before the Tribunal.
3. In this review application, like in the counter reply in the OA, there is a mention of the applicant having passed his matriculation examination from UP Board in 1983 with Hindi, English, Gen. Maths, Civics and Economics (non-science subjects), and his having appeared in secondary school examination of National Open School in May, 1992 with subjects including science. It is once again mentioned that the applicant failed in maths and he re-appeared in the said subject in November, 1992 but once again failed, and could not be awarded secondary school certificate by the National Open School. Mention is then of his appearing in the senior secondary school examination from National Open School in 1993 with Hindi, Economics, Pol. Science and English (non-science subjects), which the applicant cleared. There is not a word mentioned with regard to the applicant having passed matriculation with science on 5.9.2008. We do find from the relevant clauses of the order dated 24.5.2007 that matriculation or higher secondary has to be with science (physics and chemistry) and the candidates who are without science, too would be eligible provided they have successfully undergone a three months orientation course in science conducted by the Directorate of Education. There is no averment in the review application that the subject science cleared by the applicant in matriculation in 2008 in science was only of physics or chemistry and not both. No arguments had been raised on that count. It is only while preparing the judgment that we have found out from the order dated 24.5.2007 that science has to be with physics and chemistry. Once, it is not even now the case of the respondents that the subject science cleared by the applicant did not have any questions on physics or chemistry, there would be no need for us to go into the same. We only hasten to mention that when a person clears matriculation examination with science, the paper of science would include combined questions of physics and chemistry. It is not the case of the respondents either that all subjects cleared by a candidate in matriculation must be related to science, and that if only one of the subjects is science, the candidate would not be eligible. These aspects have not been highlighted during the course of arguments, but we are making mention of every possible aspect of the case. As mentioned above, even though the controversy to be decided was limited and there was no dispute after the applicant had passed yet another examination of matriculation with science and proved it by bringing on record his matriculation certificate, yet the respondents pleaded before the High Court that the applicant may be matriculate but he had not passed it with science. This resulted into giving permission to the respondents to file a review application, which would be only at the cost of delaying the relief granted to the applicant and also burdening him with unnecessary finances.
4. The review application is dismissed.
( L.K. JOSHI ) ( V.K. BALI ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /as/