Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepti Aggarwal vs Govt. Of Nctd on 10 January, 2025
1
Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A No. 2049/2019
Reserved on :12.12.2024
Pronounced on : 10.01.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Deepti Aggarwal
W/o Sh. Varun Kumar
R/o B - 8/114, Sector - 3,
Rohini, Delhi-110 085.
Aged about 34 years
(Group 'B')
Candidate to the post of TGT (Natural Science) (Female)
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Anurag Soan)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
5th Level, 'A' Wing,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-92.
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director,
(GNCT of Delhi)
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54. .....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Rohit Bhagat for Mr. Saurabh Chadha for R-3 and
Mr. Girish C. Jha)
2
Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant Ms. Deepti Aggarwal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders/action of the respondents placed at Annexure A/1 and dated 30/05/2019, to the extent it relates to the applicant.
(b) Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of TGT (Natural Science - Female) (post code 136/17), forthwith
(c) Accord all consequential benefits.
(d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
(e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant".
2. The conspectus of the case as per the learned counsel of the applicant is that in response to an advertisement published by the respondents to fill up various posts of TGT (Natural Science - Female) Post Code - 136/17, being fully eligible the applicant duly applied for the same and participated in the selection process. As per the result declared on 04.02.2019, she obtained 109.55 marks which was more than the cut off of 103.54. Consequently, she was shortlisted and was required to upload her e-dossier, which she did. However, her candidature was rejected on the ground that the subjects studied by her in B.Sc (Honours) were not science subjects. 3 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 Aggrieved, she preferred a representation on 31.05.2019 to the respondents. However, ignoring her representation the respondents went ahead with the selection process and appointed other candidates. Hence, the present OA.
3. Learned counsel of the applicant made the following submissions :-
"The qualification of the applicant is provided in the table below :
Degree Institution & Year / Reference
Date of passing
B.Sc. Anthropology Delhi University 2007 Annexure 3 Pg. 44-
47 of the OA
-Studied
Anthropology for
three years
-Studied Chemistry
and Zoology for
two consecutive
years
M.Sc. Delhi University 2009 Annexure 3 Pg. 53 of
Anthropology the OA
M.Sc. Chemistry Kamraj University - Annexure 4 - Pg. 40
June 2018 of the OA
2. The applicant has taught Natural Science as TGT (Natural Science) in the schools run by the Respondent no. 2 on contractual terms from 2012 to 2022 [around 10 years).
3. Multiple vacancies were issued by the respondents for recruitment of TGT Natural Science vide Notification no. 04/17 dated 20.12.2017- S. no. 50-Post Code 136/17: TGT (Natural Science) Female. The qualification required for the post of TGT (Natural Science), as on 31.01.2018, is reproduced below :-4 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
"Note:- Main, subjects for
(i) TGT (Natural Science/ Phy. Science) shall be Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany and Zoology
(ii) Social Science: History/Political Science/......
NB:- "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 practices in different Universities."
(emphasis supplied)
4. The examination was conducted on 27.09.2018 and result was declared. The applicant obtained 109.55 marks. The cutoff for Unreserved Category was 103.54.
5. The Rejection notice no. 459 dated 30.05.2019 rejected the candidature of the applicant. The grounds for rejection has been reproduced herein below:
"studied Mathematics, Statistics and Anthropology In Graduation which are not Science subjects".
(emphasis supplied)
6. The above observation by the Deputy Secretary DSSB is absolutely incorrect as appearing from the records. The applicant's marksheets of B.Sc. Anthropology clearly shows that the applicant has studied Anthropology for three years and Zoology and Chemistry for two years There is absolutely no record to show that the applicant was studying maths or statistics. The impugned rejection order dated 30.05.2019 demonstrates the following :-
A. The Impugned Order has been passed without application of mind.5 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
B. The authority passing the order was negligent in discharging its duty.
C. The authorities mischievous and negligent conduct has resulted in severe loss to the applicant.
D. The impugned order is thus arbitrary and colorable exercise of powers liability to be struck down at the very first instance.
E. The error in wrongly consideration of facts goes to the root of matter.
F. No opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to present her case leading to violation of natural justice.
7. Pertinent to highlight that the applicant vide its letter dated 31.05.2019 (very next day of Impugned rejection order) immediately pointed out the factual discrepancy to the respondent authority, however, no action was taken. No action was ever taken basis the applicant's letter dated 31.05.2019. This is against the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of fair hearing was provided to the applicant which entails a civil consequence. This is directly in teeth with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Government cannot act arbitrarily and fair opportunity of hearing has to be provided. There is clear violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
8. The Impugned Rejection Order dated 10.05.2019 runs contrary to the order of this Tribunal as well as the facts appearing from the marksheet that the applicant had studied Anthropology, Chemistry and Zoology. By no figment of imagination it can be stated that the applicant studied maths and statistics. This erratic and irresponsible observation under the Impugned Order has led to denial of rightful candidature of the applicant.
6Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
9. The Head of Department of Delhi University has in his opinion held that one of the branches of Anthropology is physical anthropology which is human biology and one of the life sciences.
10. The respondents, before passing the Impugned rejection order/notice dated 30.05.2019, issued a circular dated 31.10.2018 where they themselves proposed that the Recruitment Rules require an amendment and called for comments from stakeholders vide Circular dated 31.10.2018. The aforesaid proposed Recruitment Rules stated the following suggestion for TGT Natural Science :-
"Note:
Candidates applying for TGT (Natural Science/ Physical Science) should have studied at least one of the following subjects i.e. Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Botany/Zoology Anthropology/Life Science/Electronics/Bio-Technology/Bio Chemistry/Bio Chemistry/Bio Medical Science/ Molecular Cell Biology/Micro Biology/Applied Science and Geology as main subject at least for two years at Graduation Level"
(emphasis supplied)
11. The above suggestions were incorporated in Recruitment Rules dated 28.06.2023 [Notified via Circular dated 06.07.2023] and Anthropology was expressly included in the Recruitment Rules. The relevant excerpt of the Recruitment Rules dated 28.06.2023 herein below :-
"Notes:
l. Candidates applying for TGT (Natural Science/Physical Science) should have studied at least one of the following science Subjects:
Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Botany Zoology Anthropology/life Science/Electronics /Bio- Technology/Bio-Chemistry/Bio- Medical Science/ Molecular Cell Biology Micro Biology/Applied Science and Geology"
(emphasis supplied) 7 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
12. Thus, the factual position whether Anthropology is a science subject being essential to teach students Natural Science or Physical Science is not disputed anymore. The respondents are barred from taking a position that Anthropology is not a requite subject for TGT Natural Science.
13. There is absolute use of colorable exercise of powers by the respondents which is illegal and detrimental to the applicant. They cannot reject the candidature of applicant on the basis of wrong facts.
14. Alternatively, it is submitted that Delhi High Court had earlier granted reliefs to candidates who were similarly placed as applicant and had studied mandatory subject in their graduation as subsidiary or ancillary subjects as per the structuring of the course. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Sachin Gupta WP (C) 1520/2012 dated 07.08.2013.
15. The respondents availed the services of the applicant in the educational institution to teach the children as TGT [Natural Science) for 10 years on contractual basis when her qualification was B.Sc. &M. Sc. Anthropology. However, the respondents illegally and arbitrarily rejected her candidature on the ground that her educational qualifications are "maths and statistics subjects". Whether the respondents can arbitrarily switch their stand as per their whims and fancies leading to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
16. The respondents have arbitrarily denied the benefit to the applicant which is clearly mala fide and complete non-application of 8 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 mind. There cannot be two parameters for contractual and permanent TGT [Natural Science] teachers when it comes to imparting education to the students of the school which is also a fundamental right under constitution.
17. The conduct of the Government was very clear since 2012 that a teacher possessing qualification of BSC or MSC Anthropology is qualified enough to teach TGT [Natural Science)."
4. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in WP No. 4954 (W) of 2008 in Chitta Ranjan Sarkar vs. The State of West Bengal and Others to buttress his case wherein following observations have been made :-
"The petitioner has also annexed in his writ petition certificates issued by the head of the department and also from the professor department of Anthropology, University of Calcutta certifying that the Course content of anthropology comes under the purview of life science and that the discipline of anthropology is treated as a major stream of biological science and the same belongs to the domain of life science."
Reliance was also placed on various other decisions of different Courts which are quoted below :-
"18. That the Respondent Government is bound by the principle of consistency and non-arbitrariness. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Power Distribution Power Company Limited of 9 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 Andhra Pradesh (APSPDCL) And Anr. vs. M/s. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited And Anr. Civil Appeal no. 1844 of 2022 wherein it was held as follows:
"Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. The Public Authority is therefore required to exercise the powers only for the public good".
19. In Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others vs. Shashi Prabha Shukla and another, (2018) 12 SCC 85 after referring to earlier judgments of Supreme Court on the present issue has observed thus:
"33. Jurisprudentially thus, as could be gleaned from the above legal enunciations, a public authority in its dealings has to be fair, objective, non arbitrary, transparent and non- discriminatory The discretion vested in such an authority, which is a concomitant of its power is coupled with duty and can never be unregulated or unbridled. Any decision or action contrary to these functional precepts would be at the pain of invalidation thereof. The State and its instrumentalities, be it a public authority, either as an individual or a collective has to essentially abide by this inalienable and non-negotiable prescriptions and cannot act in breach of the trust reposed by the polity and on extraneous considerations. In exercise of uncontrolled discretion and power, it cannot resort to any act to fritter, squander and emasculate any public property, be it by way of State largesse or contracts, etc. Such outrages would clearly be unconstitutional and extinctive of the rule of law which forms the bedrock of the constitutional order."
20. In Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others, (2010) 9 SCC 437 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following:
10Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
"25. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice-in fact or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice in law"
means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of statutory power for "purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended". It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. (Vide ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla ((1976) 2 SCC 521: AIR 1976 SC 1207], S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India ((1979) 2 SCC 491 1979 SCC (L&S) 216: AIR 1979 SC 49), State of A.P. v Goverdhanlal Pitti ((2003) 4 SCC 739: AIR 2003 SC 1941), BPL Lid. v. S.P. Gururaja ((2003) 8 SCC 567] and W.B. SEB Dilip Kumar Ray [(2007) 14 SCC 568: (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 860])"
5. However, the above submissions were stoutly opposed by the learned counsel of the respondents who made the following arguments :-
(i) The applicant herself states that she is B.Sc from Delhi University in Anthropology and also done her masters in the same subject and thereafter she has pursued M.Sc (Chemistry) also. Subjects studied by her while pursuing her graduation are not subjects that are defined in the recruitment rules notified by the user department and published in the advertisement bearing No.4/17 and duly appended by the applicant along with her application as annexure A-II. The applicant having studied Maths & Statistics would have more suited for the post of TGT (Maths) 11 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 or sought selection for PGT (Chemistry) as per her educational qualification. Having chosen a subject in which none of the subjects studied by the applicant at graduation level match the essential qualification mentioned in the recruitment rules of the advertisement, she has no case what-so-ever to agitate in the matter at this juncture and the rejection has been done correctly.
(ii) The applicant should have checked the contents of the advertisement before filling up her form and appearing for the examination and her contentions are based on her own surmises and conjectures can not hold good as she had none of these subjects in her graduation level whereas in the other cases cited by the applicant, the candidates had these subjects in their graduation, but only the nomenclature of their degree deferred and therefore, their case was considered by the user department and on its recommendation only their cases were considered by the respondent Board.
(iii) Any amendment to statutory notification can be effective prospectively and not retrospectively. The Respondent Board has no powers to consider the same as it evaluates the documents etc. based on the recruitment rules notified by the user department on the date of issuance of advertisement. Therefore, these averments have no force in the present context. 12 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
(iv) The respondent Board only evaluates the documents based on the notified recruitment rules provided to it by the user department and in cases where there are no doubt, as in the instant case the applicant did not pursue any of the subjects notified for TGT Natural Sciences, her case was rightly rejected.
(v) It is incumbent on the user department to put in clarification wherever the candidates have studied the subjects defined in the recruitment rules in their graduation curriculum, whereas in the instant case none of the subjects defined in the recruitment rules have been studied by the applicant in her graduation level.
(vi) Since there is no equivalence or remote reference of the applicant having studied any of the subjects detailed in the advertisement in her graduation curriculum, the respondent Board didn't seek any necessary clarification. However, since none of the subjects studied by the applicant matched the listed subjects there was no necessity to refer such cases to the user department since it delays the result processing procedure, which was being monitored by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(vii) Since there was nothing material having been brought on record by the applicant in her representation, no cognizance was taken thereof.13
Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019
(viii) The applicant as stated in para-1 had not pursued any of the subjects specified in the advertisement issued by the Respondent Board in her graduation curriculum and was ineligible for participation in the said exam. Accordingly, after uploading of documents by the candidate the discrepancy was noted and rejection notice was issued. The cases being cited by the applicant have no bearing what-so-ever in the present case as the candidates being mentioned by the applicant had some of the subjects mentioned in the advertisement in their graduation curriculum and accordingly clarification have been sought from the user department and their provisional nomination was done by the respondent Board. Evidently, the applicant was well aware of the fact that she was ineligible for the said post because of her educational qualification and despite the fact that the notice had been issued on May, 15, she waited for outcome of the other cases and is trying to confuse the Hon'ble Tribunal by placing such facts on record which are not relevant in her case per se and apparently the entire case has been concocted as an afterthought by the applicant and hence, reserves to be dismissed.
It is further added that one Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Assistant Professor - Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, the subject Expert advised that the candidate had applied for the post of 14 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 TGT (Natural Science) with degree in Anthropology. According to RRs of Directorate of Education, GNCTD, the subject does not fit with the subjects which have been listed by the Directorate of Education, Delhi. Hence, the candidate did not qualify for this post. The committee accepted the advice of the subject expert and recommended that the candidature of the candidate be rejected. The said position became amply clear from the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12.07.2017. The relevant part (in tabulated form )of which is reproduced below :-
Name of Post Degree/Qualific Recommendation of the Sl. Candidate Code/ ation to be Committee No. Subject decided by the Committee
7. Deepti 11/13 Degree in The subject expert advised Aggarwal (Natural Anthropology that the candidate has Science) applied for TGT(Natural Science)with degree in Anthropology. According to RRs of Directorate of Education, GNCTD, the subject does not fit with the subjects which have been listed by Directorate of Education, Delhi. Hence the candidate does not qualify for this post. The Committee accepted the advice of the subject expert and recommends that candidature of the candidate needs to be rejected.
6. Heard the learned counsel of both the sides ; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments. We have observed that the respondents had erroneously rejected the 15 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 applicant's case earlier on the ground that she 'studied Maths, Statistics and Anthropology in graduation which are not science subjects' vide their Rejection Notice No. 459 dated 30.05.2019.
This rejection order was passed without due application of mind. Vide order dated 24.07.2017 and vide minutes of the meeting held on 12.07.2017 in the chamber of Regional Director of Education, District : Central regarding qualifications acquired by the candidate other than those mentioned in RRs of TGT/TGT (MIL), the candidature of the candidate was rejected on the advice of the subject expert that a degree in Anthropology is not sufficient to teach science subjects. However, this advice furnished by Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi dated 05.07.2012 is contrary to the certificate dated 01.12.2016 given by the Head of Department, Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi which reads as under :-
"one of the branches of Anthropology is Physical Anthropology which is Human Biology and one of the Life Sciences."
We are inclined to abide by the expert opinion of the HoD - Anthropology as he is much senior to Assistant Professor of Anthropology - Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh in the academic hierarchy. Also we have seen that the respondents before passing the impugned rejection order/notice dated 30.05.2019 issued a circular 16 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 dated 31.10.2018 where they themselves proposed that the Recruitment Rules require an amendment and called for comments from stakeholders vide circular dated 31.10.2018. The aforesaid proposed Recruitment Rules stated the following suggestion for TGT Natural Science :-
"Note : Candidates applying for TGT (Natural Science/ Physical Science) should have studied at least one of the following subjects i.e. Physics/Chemistry/Biology Botany Zoology Anthropology/Life Science/Electronics/Bio Technology Bio Chemistry/Bio Chemistry/ Bio Medical Science/ Molecular Cell Biology/Micro Biology/Applied Science and Geology as main subject at least for two years at Graduation Level.
The above suggestions were incorporated in Recruitment Rules dated 28.06.2023 [Notified via Circular dated 06.07.2023] and Anthropology was expressly included in the Recruitment Rules. The relevant excerpt of the Recruitment Rules dated 28.06.2023 are herein below :
"Candidates applying for TGT (Natural Science/Physical Science) should have studied at least one of the following science Subjects:
Physics / Chemistry / Biology / Botany Zoology / Anthropology / life Science / Electronics / Bio Technology Bio-Chemistry / Bio-Medical Science / Molecular Cell Biology / Micro Biology / Applied Science and Geology"
7. From the above, it is clear that the respondents themselves have for subsequent recruitment process considered Anthropology as an eligible qualification to recruit TGT Natural Science. This 17 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 inclusion is self explanatory that Anthropology was always an eligible qualification to recruit teachers for TGT Natural Science. Also we have observed that the applicant has served more than ten years with the schools run by the respondents at the very same designation of TGT Natural Science but on a contractual basis. This shows that there cannot be two parameters for recruitment at the same position as the question revolves around the basic qualification required to teach the specific subjects. If the applicant was contractually accepted to teach the same subjects for ten years but rejected for the permanent position on the ground that her qualification of M.Sc in Anthropology is not appropriate then such action would be arbitrary and discriminatory. Also now the applicant has completed her M.Sc in Chemistry and is thus more than competent to teach natural science as TGT.
8. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA unequivocally lies with the applicant. The OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order No. F.182/TGT (Nat. Sc.) Female/Int. Cell/DSSSB/2018-19/2769-79 dated 30.05.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of TGT (Natural Science) (Female) Post Code No. 136/17, (as she has obtained 109.55 marks whereas the cut off marks for unreserved category are 103.54) and if she is otherwise found fit, offer her a 18 Item No. 62 (C-4) OA 2049/2019 letter of appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant will get all notional benefits like fixation of pay and allowances and seniority. However, there will be no payment of arrears of pay and allowances on the principle of 'No work no pay'. There will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/