Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Dahiya S/O Sh. Joginder Singh ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 15 September, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA Nos. 1054, 1055, 1098, 1180, 1082, 1089, 1095, 1096, 1417, 1344, 1097, 1470, 1549, 1351, 1353, 1106, 1117, 1139, 1235, 1236, 1241, 1332, 1333, 1352, 1450, 1484, 1617, 1621, 1660, 1280, 1861, 1865, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1681, 1759, 1760, 1766, 1785, 1961 and 1165 of 2008. New Delhi, this the 15th day of September, 2008 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) OA No. 1054/2008 Anil Dahiya S/o Sh. Joginder Singh Dahiya, R/o A1-15, Hars Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Part-II, Delhi 86. Applicant ( By Shri Yogesh Sharma & Ms. Jyotsna Kaushik, Advocates) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. N.C.T. of Delhi through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 3. The Directorate of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt. 4. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1055/2008 Smt. Geeta w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o 202-A, Naharpur, Rohini, Sector 7, Delhi 110 085. Applicant ( By Shri Yogesh Sharma & Ms. Jyotsna Kaushik, Advocates) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. N.C.T. of Delhi through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 3. The Directorate of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt. 4. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1098/2008 Suman Bala, D/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o RZ-67/B, H-Block, Dharampura Colony, Najafgarh, Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1180/2008 Ms. Vandana Malhotra, W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o Flat No. 602, Judges Residential Complex, Karkardooma Court. Applicant ( By Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate,New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita & Ms. Renu George, Advocates ) OA No. 1082/2008 Mrs. Kavita Rani W/o Sh. Rajesh Dagar, R/o H.No. 98, Vill. & PO Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi 110 072. Applicant ( By Shri Deepender Hooda through Ms. Kavita Rani, Adv. ) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Services Department, 5th Level, `A Wing, Delhi Sachivalaya, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Through its Secretary, FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1089/2008 Ms. Munesh Kumari W/o Shri Prem Jit, R/o RZ-L/25A, Gali No. 3, West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110 046. Applicant ( By Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1095/2008 Ms. Preeti D/o Shri Mahavir, R/o 722, Vill. & PO Khera Khurd, Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1096/2008 Ms. Sonika D/o Sh. Jagbir Singh, R/o 593, Vill.&PO Khera Khurd, Delhi 110 082. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1417/2008 Ms. Monika D/o Mahender Singh, R/o H.No. 105, VPO Budhanpur, Majra Dabas, Delhi 81. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1344/2008 Ms. Parveen, D/o Sh. Braham Prakash, R/o H.No. 60, VPO Nizampur, Delhi 110 081. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1097/2008 Smt. Vijay, W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar, R/o 1011, Sector-15, Sonipat- 131 001. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1470/2008 Ms. Sarla Devi D/o Ram Chander, R/o RZ H-180, Dharampura Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi 43. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1549/2008 Mr. Pardeep Kamal, S/o late Shri Lakhi Ram, R/o H.No. 771, Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi 40. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1351/2008 Sh. Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Ram Parsad, R/o F-2/205, Mangolpuri, Delhi 110 083. Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Shukla, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1353/2008 Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o late Sh. Gangoo Singh, R/o D-891, Gali No. 13, (Near Transformer), Ashok Nagar, Delhi 110 093. Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Shukla, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1106/2008 Ms. Saneh Lata D/o Shri Nathu Ram, H.No. 292, Vill. Bhalswa, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1117/2008 Rohit s/o Sh. Sushil Chand R/o 4650/4B, Gali No. 7, New Modern Shahdara, Delhi 110 032. Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Shukla, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1139/2008 Sh. Yogender Kumar S/o Sri Padam Kumar R/o H.No. 37, Ambedkar Colony, Alipur, Delhi 110 036. Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Shukla, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1235/2008 Ms. Mukta D/o Sh. Narender Kumar R/o WZ-325, Shakarpur, Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita & Ms. Renu George, Advocates ) OA No. 1236/2008 Ms. Parveen Dahiya D/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, R/o T-135, Indera Colony, Narela, Delhi 110 040. Applicant ( By Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita & Ms. Pratima Gupta, Advocates ) OA No. 1241/2008 Pushpa Devi W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar R/o H.No. 272-A, Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi 110 085. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate & with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC/18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita & Ms. Renu George, Advocates ) OA No. 1332/2008 Ms. Mamta D/o Sh. Ramphal, R/o 95, Vill. Rasul Pur, PO Ranikhera, Delhi 110 081. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate & with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita & Ms. Renu George, Advocates ) OA No. 1333/2008 Ms. Geeta d/o Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o H.No. 1445, Sector 15, Sonipat (Haryana). Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate & with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita & Ms. Renu George, Advocates ) OA No. 1352/2008 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Premi S/o Sh. Munshi Lal Premi R/o A-17/22, Sant Ravi Dass, Gali No. 1, Brahampri, Delhi 110 053. Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Shukla, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1450/2008 Smt. Kailash W/o Sh. Rajiv Kumar, R/o H.No. 331, Prem Nagar, Phase-II, Nazafgarh, New Delhi- 43. Applicant ( Ms. Jyotsana Kaushik, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 2. The Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old. Sectt., Delhi. 3. The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1484/2008 Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Singh, R/o RZ-3, Roshan Garden, Najafgarh, New Delhi-43. Applicant ( None present ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Directorate of Education, Through Director, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Through Secretary, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No.1617/2008 Sh. Ram Kawar S/o Sh. Fateh Chand, R/o H.No. 700/22, Katmandi, Bhartpuri, Sonipat, Haryana-131 001. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate & with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1621/2008 Sh. Randhir S/o Sh. Jugti, R/o WZ-23, Dasghara Village, Near Todapor, Pusa, New Delhi 12. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate & with him Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1660/2008 Smt. Champa Rani W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar H.No. 842/35, Janta Colony, Rohtak 124 001 (Haryana). Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Sharma, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1280/2008 Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Sh. Vijay Mathur, R/o RZ-318, N Block, New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, New Delhi 43. Applicant ( By Ms. Jyotsana Kaushik, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. N.C.T. of Delhi through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 3. The Directorate of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt. 4. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1861/2008 Ms. Shakuntla D/o Sh. Jagmohan, R/o H.No. 742/1, Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi 40. Applicant ( By Ms. Jyotsana Kaushik, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 2. The Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old. Sectt., Delhi. 3. The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1868/2008 Ms. Hemlata D/o Sh. H.S. Tomar R/o H-90, Gali No. 4, Garhwali Mohalla, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 92. Applicant ( None present ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1908/2008 Ms. Renu d/o Sh. Amar Singh RZ-267, Gopal Nagar-II, Najafgarh, New Delhi 43. Applicant ( By Shri Y. P. Rangi, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1909/2008 Ms. Manjeet Kumari D/o Sh. Iqbal Singh, Vill. Ranhola, PO Nangloi, New Delhi- 41. Applicant ( By Shri Y. P. Rangi, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1910/2008 Ms. Manjusha Malik, W/o Sh. Naresh Malik, 324, DDA Flat, Pocket-I, Sector 1, New Delhi- 75. Applicant ( By Shri Y. P. Rangi, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 3rd Floor, UTCS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1681/2008 Mrs. Asha Munjal, W/o Mr. Vivek Munjal, R/o M-170, II Floor, Guru Har Kishan Nagar, New Delhi 110 087. Applicant ( By Shri T. D. Yadav, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1759/2008 Satwanti Kumari W/o Sh. Sant Ram Dabas, R/o H.No. 194, V&PO Ladpur, Delhi 110 081. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Bhandari, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Directorate of Education, Establishment-III Branch, Special Cell, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Karkardooma Industrial Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1760/2008 Sangeeta Khatri W/o Shri Ashok Dabas, R/o H.No. 194, VPO Ladpur, Delhi-110 081. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Bhandari, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Directorate of Education, Establishment-III Branch, Special Cell, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Karkardooma Industrial Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1766/2008 Shilpa w/o Sh. Navneet Dahiya, (D/o Sh. Dattar Singh) R/o F-6, Pattesay Wali Gali, Main Auchandi Road, Bawana, Delhi 110 039. Applicant ( By Shri G. D. Bhandari, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Directorate of Education, Establishment-III Branch, Special Cell, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC-18, Karkardooma Industrial Area, Delhi 110 092. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1785/2008 Ms. Nisha Mann D/o Sh. V.P. Mann, R/o H.No. 183, Vill. Khera Khurd, Delhi 110 082. Applicant ( None present ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1961/2008 Sh. Charanpreet Singh, S/o Sh. Balwant Singh, R/o H.No. 137, Pocket B-3, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri S. S. Tiwari, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretarait, I.P. Estate, Player Buildings, Delhi- 110 002. 2. Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Old Sectt., Delhi-54. 3. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Behind Karkardooma Court, UTS Building, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) OA No. 1165/2008 1. Ms. Manisha D/o Sh. Balraj Singh Gahlot, H.No. 290, VPO Mitraon, New Delhi. 2. Ms. Rachna D/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, R/o H.No. 663, VPO Mitraon, New Delhi. Applicants ( By Shri Rakesh Chahar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, 5-M, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Govt. of NCT, UTCS Bldg., Institutional Area, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110 032. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
By this common order, we propose to dispose of 42 connected matters, as admittedly common questions of law and fact are involved in all the cases. The learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. We may, however, mention that pleadings are complete only in some of the cases, but in view of exactly same controversy involved in all cases, there would be no need to complete pleadings in all cases. For disposal of the matters, however, we would refer to OA No.1054/2008 in the matter of Anil Dahiya v Union of India & Others, in which 3rd respondent therein, Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi has filed reply, and OA No.1332/2008 in the matter of Ms. Mamta v Government of NCT of Delhi & Others, in which Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) 3rd respondent therein, has filed reply. Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, and DSSSB are the only contesting respondents.
2. The facts as set out in OA No.1504/2008 in the matter of Anil Dahiya reveal that the applicant belongs to OBC category. He passed his graduation degree, i.e., BA (Pass) during the academic session 1994-1997 from University of Delhi and passed B.Ed. in the year 2001 from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. In December 2006, respondent DSSSB invited applications for various posts of PGT and TGT through newspaper Times of India dated 30.12.2006 under advertisement No.06/2006, in which the last date for receipt of applications was 1.2.2007. For the post of TGT (Hindi) (Male) (post code 110/06) applications were invited for 206 posts out of which 55 posts were reserved for OBC candidates and educational and other qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are as under:
(i) B.A. (Hons.) in one of the Modern Indian Language (MIL) concerned or B.A. with MIL concerned as one of the elective subjects from a recognized University having 45% marks in aggregate with additional language or one school subject at Degree level. OR Equivalent Oriental Degree in MIL concerned from a recognized University having 45% marks in aggregate OR (for appointment of Hindi Teachers only) Sahitya Rattan or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag having secured at least 45% marks in aggregate with English in Matriculation. Provided further that the requirement to minimum of 45% marks in aggregate shall be relaxable in the case of (a) candidates who possess a post graduate qualification in MIL concerned from a recognized University (b) candidates belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically Handicapped candidates.
(ii) Degree/Diploma in training/Education or Senior Anglo Vernacular (SAV) Certificates.
(iii) Working knowledge of Hindi. It is the case of the applicant that he fulfills all the conditions and eligibility criteria in respect of educational and other qualifications. He thus applied for the post of TGT (Hindi) (Male) under OBC category, as he possesses degree of BA with MIL concerned, i.e., Hindi as one of the elective subjects from a recognized University having 45% marks with additional language or one school subject at degree level. His application was accepted and he was duly issued roll number to appear in the written examination. He accordingly appeared in the written examination and secured 169 marks out of 400, but his name has not been included in the result of written test declared on 3.4.2008 in the newspaper. Against 55 posts earmarked for OBC candidates, only four persons were declared passed. When the applicant came to know through the result that his name has not been included in the list of selected candidates despite the fact that against 55 posts only four persons have been selected, he applied under the RTI Act for the reasons for his non-selection, and the Directorate of Education, 3rd respondent, vide information dated 10.4.2008 informed him that he had secured 169 marks (89 in part-I and 89 in part-II out of 400) and also that the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in OBC category were 140.75 out of 400. The reason for his non-selection as disclosed is as under:
The applicants case for selection to the post of TGT (Hindi) was not considered as on final scrutiny of dossiers it was noticed that he does not possess the requisite qualification for the post as indicated in the statutory Recruitment Rules of the post. The applicant approached the 3rd respondent and sought clarification as to which qualification he does not possess, as stated in the information dated 10.4.2008, and was verbally informed that he does not fulfill the eligibility conditions laid down in recruitment rules, not having studied Hindi as elective subject in his B.A., and, therefore, his name has not been included in the list of selected candidates, as the concerned subject should be an elective subject. It is the case of the applicant that his non-selection is wholly illegal and arbitrary and against Directorate of Education clarification dated 14.3.2002 on the definition of elective, which is reproduced as under:
As per policy the definition of elective in R/Rs has been framed as that the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the R/Rs or at least 100 marks each in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different Universities.
The above definition of elective subject shall apply to all the orders of promotion and Direct Recruitment issued by this office from time to time. It is further the case of the applicant that he studied the subject Hindi in graduation in all the three years with at least 100 marks each in all parts/years of graduation. The details of marks obtained by him are as under:
BA (Pass) 1st year: Secured 46 marks out of 100 (1994-95) BA (Pass) 2nd year: Secured 52 marks out of 100 (1995-96) BA (Pass) 3rd year: Secured 41 marks out of 100 (1996-97). The applicant, along with Hindi, also studied other subjects, i.e., English, Political Science and History in all the three years of his graduation.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, 3rd respondent in OA No.1054/2008, and Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), 3rd respondent in OA No.1332/2008 (4th respondent in OA No.1054/2008), have entered appearance and filed their respective counter replies. We may first note the averments made in the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent Directorate of Education in OA No.1054/2008. It is pleaded that the Directorate has been filling the post of TGT/TGT (MIL) as per provisions of recruitment rules, and that the vacancies pertaining to direct recruitment quota are notified by DSSSB from time to time and promotion quota is filled from amongst Assistant Teachers/Lab Assistants from the feeder grade. After selection process, DSSSB recommends the names of selected candidates to the directorate for appointment subject to verification of their eligibility as per recruitment rules. The role of the Directorate starts only after a candidate is nominated by DSSSB and his dossiers are received by the Directorate. The Directorate, it is averred, is never informed about the detail of any panel of candidates selected by DSSSB in reference to any advertisement notifying the vacancies, and that during verification of documents of candidates nominated by DSSSB, if a candidate is found not eligible as per provisions of recruitment rules, his dossier is returned to DSSSB. Insofar as, the plea of the applicants that they had studied Hindi as an elective subject and the definition of elective vide clarification dated 14.3.2002 by the Directorate, is concerned, it is averred that the word elective has been used in recruitment rules, and for this purpose the Directorate has so far been complying with the instructions contained in Cabinet decision No.242 dated 2.5.1997 read with corrigendum dated 2.5.1997. In the Cabinet decision No.242 dated 2.5.1997 the word elective has been mentioned/defined as under:
While deciding the eligibility of candidates in different subjects at graduation level i.e. Maths, Natural Science, Social Science, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Punjabi and Urdu, Elective subjects as specified in the RRs may be interpreted to mean all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation as the case may be with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject as the case may be. The Elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities. It is then pleaded that the Directorate is not fully aware as to on what grounds/facts the cases of applicant and others have been rejected by DSSSB, and on what grounds they would defend the same in court.
4. In the reply filed by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) (3rd respondent in OA No.1332/2008), it has inter alia been pleaded that that Board has no role in framing recruitment rules for respective posts, and that the user departments as per their job requirements of the post, get the recruitment rules notified and send their requisitions to the Board. It is further pleaded that the Board is bound to follow the provisions of statutory recruitment rules in processing the recruitment. Essential qualifications as per advertisement, for the post under contention are the same as have been mentioned by the applicant, reproduced above. It is then pleaded that keeping in view the large number of applications, some of the applicants who otherwise do not possess the requisite qualification of study of Hindi subject in graduation at elective level, participated in the recruitment process which was of two parts [part I (objective) and part II, main (descriptive)], and that as per policy decision the recruitment was finalized considering those candidates who possess the requisite qualification and have attained merit position as per examinations conducted by the Board for selection, and further that since at the time of declaration of results dossiers of such candidates who have attained merit positions were finalized and scrutinized to ascertain their eligibility for the post with reference to essential qualifications as prescribed by the statutory recruitment rules, as such those who do not possess the requisite qualifications as per recruitment rules were not considered for selection even though they have participated in the recruitment process and attained merit. The counter reply then refers to several judicial precedents laying down that candidates must satisfy the eligibility norms prescribed under statutory recruitment rules for the post, and that the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment is to be made are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of executive and it is not for the judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the category from which recruitment is to be made. Insofar as, the core controversy with regard to Hindi as an elective subject at graduation level is concerned, it is pleaded that the applicant had studied Hindi as a compulsory subject and not as an elective subject, and, therefore, she does not fulfill the essential educational qualification for the post as per statutory recruitment rules. Para 4.9 of the counter reply taking the stand as enumerated above, is reproduced below:
In reply to para 4.9 it is submitted that the present applicant has studied Hindi as a compulsory subject and not as an elective subject; therefore, she does not fulfill the essential educational qualification for the post as per the statutory RRs.
5. Insofar as, the Cabinet decision No.242 dated 2.5.1997 read with corrigendum dated 14.3.2002 is concerned, it is pleaded that the same has not even been incorporated in the statutory recruitment rules. It is pleaded that the respondent Board had sought clarification from the Directorate vide letter dated 24.7.2007 (i.e., before the examination part-I was conducted on 29.7.2007), and again vide letter dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure R-4). The Directorate vide letter dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure R-5) communicated that the recruitment for the post of TGT/TGT (MIL) may be carried out as per the existing provisions of statutory recruitment rules. The Board wrote a D.O. letter dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure R-6) suggesting that the Directorate may take up the amendment of recruitment rules. It was further suggested that while amending the recruitment rules the changing scenario of higher education of colleges and universities may be kept in view to widen the zone of consideration, and that study of concerned subject at elective level be dispensed with for the candidates with higher qualification(s) in concerned subjects.
6. The controversy in the context of pleadings of the parties, as mentioned above, appears to be in a very narrow compass. Insofar as, the qualifications of the applicant are concerned, and in particular, that he has done graduation by appearing in the examination in each year in Hindi for marks of 100 or more and passed the same, there is no dispute. The qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement and the one mentioned in recruitment rules are also not in dispute. The only discordant view between the parties is that whereas the applicant would say that the word elective would mean that a candidate should study the subject concerned, as mentioned in recruitment rules, for at least 100 marks each in all parts/years of graduation, the respondent Board would interpret the word elective to mean Hindi as an elective subject and not as a compulsory subject. It is again not in dispute that there is no definition of elective given in recruitment rules. Insofar as, the respondent Directorate is concerned, it is admitted in the pleadings as also during the course of arguments that the word elective would mean and include all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation, as the case may be, with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject, and the elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities.
7. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, we are of the view that once, there is no definition of the word elective in the rules the same can well be clarified by executive instructions. That the Cabinet had taken decision on 2.5.1997 and that a corrigendum dated 14.3.2002 clarifying that the word elective would mean and include all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation, as the case may be, with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject, and the elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities, is not in dispute. All that is being urged by the counsel representing the respondent Board, which is in tune with the pleadings made in its counter reply, is that such a clarification should have been incorporated in the statutory recruitment rules, and till such time that is done, the word elective would mean elective and not compulsory. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel as noted above. Whether the subject concerned should be compulsory or elective in graduation is not by virtue of any definition of the word elective under statutory rules. The Board cannot by any stretch of imagination give its own meaning to the word elective, particularly when by a Cabinet decision followed by a corrigendum it has been clarified as mentioned above. We may repeat and reiterate that if the rules are silent with regard to a particular situation, same can be clarified by a Cabinet decision or even by executive instructions issued by the competent authority.
8. Similar controversy as before us has recently been subject matter of decision by a learned single bench of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Saroj Rana & Another v Government of NCT of Delhi & Others (CWP No.2576/2002 decided on 25.7.2008). The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that Director of Education required to appoint teachers in schools and the task to select teachers was entrusted to the Board (DSSSB). The Board vide advertisement dated 11.12.2000 invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various teaching and related posts. The relevant qualifications were prescribed as follows:
1. Bachelors Degree (Pass/Hon) from a recognized university or Equivalent having secured at least 45% marks in aggregate in two School subjects of which at least one of the following should have been at the elective level (a) English, (b) Mathematics, (c) Social Science, (d) Physical/ Natural Science.
NOTE: Main subjects 1. TGT (Natural Science/ Physical Science) shall be Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Zoology.
2. TGT (Social Science) shall be History/ Political Science/Economics/Business Studies/ Sociology/Geography/Physiology. Petitioners before the High Court had applied for the post of TGT in respective subjects. They were issued admit cards and appeared in the written examination. Result of the written examination was declared on 9.11.2001. Petitioners were declared successful in the written examination and they thus submitted the required certificates before the Board, but they were not declared successful for appointment to the post of TGT. Aggrieved thus, they filed the writ petition inter alia pleading therein that As per policy the definition of elective in R/Rs has been framed as that the candidate should have studied the main subject concerned as mentioned in R/Rs of at least 100 marks each in all parts/years of graduation, and that even though, they answered the eligibility criteria, they were wrongly excluded from even consideration for the post under contention. The Board in its counter affidavit pleaded that the petitioners were not eligible as per recruitment rules. With regard to the issue involved in the present case, it was pleaded that the concerned petitioner (Ms. Himani Sharma) had not studied English as an elective subject in all three years of BA (Pass) course, as required under relevant rules. It was noted by the learned single Judge while dealing with the case of Himani Sharma that she had done her post graduation in English and had an extraordinary brilliant academic record with 70% marks at the level of graduation and 62% marks at the post graduation level, i.e., M.A. in subject English. After giving the qualifications of petitioner Himani Sharma, it was observed that qualification required under recruitment rules for the post of TGT (English) is that a candidate should be BA (Pass/Hons) from a recognized university with English as an elective subject. The word elective used in the recruitment rules, has been clarified by the Directorate of Education Estt. III Branch vide corrigendum dated 13.3.2000, as follows:
As per policy the definition of Elective in R/Rs has been framed as that the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the R/Rs of at least 100 marks each in all parts/years of graduation. The Elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different Universities. On the basis of corrigendum reproduced above, it was held by the Delhi High Court as follows:
22. In view of what has been stated by the Government of NCT of Delhi in the corrigendum dated 13.03.2000 referred above and in view of stand of respondent No. 2 in para 2 of its preliminary submission in the case of Ms. Himani Sharma, there can be no manner of doubt in holding that the petitioners in both the writ petitions namely Ms. Saroj Rana and Ms. Himani Sharma possessed the requisite qualification of B.A. (Pass/Hons) with English as one of the main subjects of study prescribed under the relevant rules for appointment to the posts of TGT (English).
23. It shall further be relevant to mention that the Director of Education has communicated to one of the candidates Mr. Kishan Chander Sharma vide its letter dated 05.03.2007 while supplying information under the Right to Information Act that as per the existing information available on records, the elective subject stands for main subject studied by the candidate at the graduation level during all the years of graduation with at least 100 marks.
This communication dated 05.03.2007 by the Director of Education is admitted by the counsels who appeared on behalf of the respondent. In view of the legal position regarding the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'elective subject' used in the recruitment rules as explained hereinabove, the judgment of this Court in Pratap Singh Chaudhary Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others in WP(C) No. 1954/2002 decided on 30.05.2002 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The answer to the main question was given by observing as follows:
.The answer to the question whether the main subject of English studied by the petitioners in all the three years of their B.A. (Pass) course would fit in the description of elective subject used in the R/Rs lies in the corrigendum dated 13.03.2000 extracted in para 20 of the judgment hereinabove. The corrigendum dated 13.03.2000 clearly provides that as per the policy of the department 'elective subject' specified in the recruitment rules would be interpreted so as to include passing of the concerned subject by the candidate in all the years/ semesters of graduation with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject as the case may be. In the present case, the petitioners were to be recommended by respondent No. 2 for their appointment as TGT (English). In the present case, both the petitioners namely Ms. Saroj Rana and Ms. Himani Sharma have studied English as main subject in all the three years of their graduation and have passed the paper in English Subject in all the three years carrying 100 marks each. This meets the requirement of the recruitment rules prescribed for appointment to the post of TGT (English). The only difference in the cases before us and the one before the Delhi High Court is that whereas applicants herein are seeking appointment as TGT in Hindi, the petitioners, namely, Saroj Rana and Himani Sharma, before the High Court were seeking appointment as TGT in English, and further that, whereas, petitioner before the Delhi High Court placed reliance upon corrigendum dated 13.3.2000, the applicants herein are placing reliance upon Cabinet decision No.242 dated 2.5.1997 and corrigendum dated 14.3.2002. In the two corrigenda dated 13.3.2000 and 14.3.2002, however, there is no difference in substance.
9. During the course of arguments, whereas counsel representing the Directorate of Education would concede that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in Saroj Rana (supra), Shri Vijay Pandita, learned counsel representing the respondent DSSSB, even though not denying that the issue before this Tribunal is same as was before the Honble High Court, would, however, contend that the High court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as this Tribunal alone has exclusive original jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He would also contend that unless there is an amendment in the recruitment rules so as to specifically say that elective subject would mean that all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation, as the case may be, with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject, and the elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities, the respondent DSSSB was well within its right to reject all such applications where candidates have not studied Hindi as an elective subject. We do not want to go into the first question raised by the learned counsel with regard to jurisdiction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that there is no bar on this Tribunal to take the same view as has indeed been taken by the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The reasons recorded for arriving at the conclusion as extracted above, are convincing and need to be followed. Independently, also we are of the same view that has been taken by the High Court in Saroj Rana (supra). Additionally, we may mention again that if the rules may not take care of a particular situation, the same can be well supplemented by clarifications, even by executive instructions, and there would be no need to amend the rules. Further, the stand of the respondents that the subject concerned must be an elective subject in graduation and not compulsory, is neither forthcoming from rules nor from any instructions. Still further, the respondents would not clarify the difference between the mode of study and taking of examination for elective and compulsory subject. Looked from any angle, the applicants would be eligible for the post under contention.
10. In view of the discussion made above, we direct the respondent DSSSB to declare the result of the applicants and offer them appointment to the post for which they applied, if they may otherwise find place in merit commensurate to the available seats in their respective categories. The costs of the litigation are, however, made easy.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/