Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nidhika Gemini vs Directorate Of Education on 15 February, 2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No.1460/2023
Order reserved on : 12.02.2024
Pronounced on : 15.02.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Nidhika Gemini
D/o Krishan Gopal Gemini,
R/o H.No.2732, 5t. No.204,
Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035. ... Applicant
( By Ms. Zubeda Begum with Ms. Sana Ansari and Mr. Shashank
Sharma, Advocates )
Versus
1. The Directorate of Education
through its Director,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. ... Respondents
( By Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Advocate )
ORDER
Justice Ranjit More, Chairman :
By filing this Application, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"i) quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 issued by Respondent No.1 in OA-1460/2023 2 cancelling the Applicant for the said post of M.A. (Eco) under post code 67/20.
ii) To appoint Applicant with all consequential benefits from 20.01.2023
iii) pass any such other or further order(s) in favour of the Applicant as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice.
iv) allow the present Application with costs, in favour of the Applicant."
2. The 2nd respondent issued an advertisement for filling up the post of PGT Economics (Female) under post code 67/20 in the year 2020. In pursuance of this advertisement, an on-line examination was conducted on 17.07.2021. The list of the short-listed candidates was published on 30.09.2021. Thereafter, on 15.12.2021 result of the said examination was declared, and the applicant was shown in the waiting panel/list under EWS category. On 13.01.2023, the 1st respondent issued a memorandum offering appointment to the applicant to the post of PGT-Economics (Female) under post code 67/20. The offer of appointment was subject to successful verification of the original documents in respect of educational qualification, age, category, etc. However, the applicant was shocked to receive a deficiency memorandum dated 13.02.2023 informing that during the course of document verification in respect of the applicant for the post in question, it was found that "passing year of M.A. (Economics) is overlapping with course duration/Session of B.Ed OA-1460/2023 3 Course". The applicant was accordingly directed to submit the requisite documents/clarification to the Establishment branch of the 1st respondent within a period of fifteen days.
3. The applicant thereafter made correspondence with the Himachal Pradesh University wherefrom she had obtained her MA (Economics) degree, and replied to the respondent along with requisite documents that she did not pursue two courses, i.e., MA (Economics) and B.Ed., simultaneously. Despite this, vide the impugned order dated 04.05.2023, the 1st respondent cancelled the candidature of the applicant, and her dossier was returned to the 2nd respondent.
4. It is the case of the applicant that she took admission in MA (Economics) through the International Centre for Distance Education and Open Learning (ICDEOL), Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, during the academic session 2013-2015. The MA (Economics) course was divided into four semesters, i.e., November, 2013; June, 2014; November, 2014; and June, 2015. The applicant could not appear for the first semester, which was held in November, 2013 due to her health issues. However, the applicant appeared for and cleared her second semester. Thereafter, along with the third semester, the applicant appeared for her first semester. Though the applicant cleared the third semester, for the reasons best known to OA-1460/2023 4 the University, result of the first semester of the applicant was not declared. By June, 2015, the applicant appeared for and cleared the second, third and fourth semesters. Still her final result was not declared and kept on hold.
5. The applicant thereafter on 23.02.2016, sent a representation to the Himachal Pradesh University to ascertain the reason for withholding of her result. However, she was advised to again appear for the first semester as a private candidate. Accordingly, the applicant again appeared for the first semester in the month of November, 2016, and thereafter the final result was declared and degree of MA was awarded to her.
6. In the meanwhile, the applicant having the impression that she had cleared all semesters of MA (Economics) by June, 2015, took admission in B.Ed course (2015-2017) and successfully completed the same. Thus, it is the case of the applicant that there is no overlapping between the said two courses, i.e., MA (Economics) and B.Ed. It is also the specific contention of the applicant that she could not appear for the first semester examination of MA because of her ill health, and in compelling circumstances, she was required to appear for the same in November, 2016, and, therefore, it has to be treated as a compartment for the applicant.
OA-1460/2023 5
7. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.9817/2019 - Abhishek Mourya v Union of India & others, decided on 14.11.2019; and WP(C) No.8151/2010 - Sanwal Ram v University of Delhi & others, decided on 10.03.2011, coupled with the information bulletin/prospectus of the Himachal Pradesh University, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first semester examination wherein the applicant appeared in November, 2016, would relate back to November, 2013, and, therefore, there no occasion for overlapping of the two courses mentioned hereinabove.
8. The respondent No.1 contested the Application by filing an affidavit in reply. It is the case of the respondent that the applicant completed her MA (Economics) degree in the year 2016 from the Himachal Pradesh University, and B.Ed degree from MDU, Rohtak during the session 2015-2017. Thus, she completed both the degrees simultaneously. Relying upon the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, and specifically Section 5(2), learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is not open to a candidate to pursue two degrees simultaneously, and that since the applicant's degrees, i.e., MA and B.Ed, are overlapping, her candidature was rightly rejected by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the policy notification of the IGNOU on pursuing two or more programmes during the same period, OA-1460/2023 6 whereby it is envisaged that two degrees cannot be allowed to be pursued simultaneously.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in R. Chitra & others v Member Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & others [2021 3 CTC 369; 2021 2 LW 846].
10. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties, annexures thereto, as also having given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find merit in the Application.
11. From the certificate dated 22.03.2023 given by Deputy Registrar, Himachal Pradesh University, it is clear that the applicant took admission in MA (Economics) in the year 2013 through distance learning mode. There is no dispute that this MA degree course was of two-year duration, consisting of four semesters, i.e., November, 2013; June, 2014; November, 2014; and June, 2015. There is also no dispute that the applicant cleared the second, third and fourth semesters on due dates. So far as the examination for the first semester which was held in November, 2013, is concerned, the applicant could not appear for the same because of her ill health and, therefore, the examination of this semester was taken by her along with third semester in November, 2014. However, her result was not OA-1460/2023 7 declared. In these compelling circumstances, when the applicant found that her entire result was withheld, she, on the advice of the University appeared for the first semester in November, 2016, and subsequently got her MA degree. Copy of the degree is annexed at page 59 of the compilation, wherein the enrollment number of the applicant is shown as 13-CC-MN-47. The "CC" in this enrollment number, means "Compartment Case".
12. This takes us to consider the argument of the applicant that though she appeared in the first semester examination in November, 2016, it would relate back to 2013. In this regard, reliance is placed upon two decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, referred to hereinabove. In Abhishek Mourya (supra) the issue was whether the National Law University, New Delhi, was right in rejecting the petitioner's admission to the 2019 LLM on the ground that on the date when the orientation was held, he had not passed the qualifying examination qua the 2019 LLM course. In this case, the petitioner obtained admission in the three-year LLB course in July- August, 2916, and sailed through all the six semesters. However, there was a doubt as to whether or not he had cleared one of the five papers of the sixth semester, i.e., the paper concerning Interpretation of Statute. The petitioner ultimately cleared this paper on 27.08.2019, i.e., beyond the date of orientation. The question was whether the OA-1460/2023 8 result of the supplementary examination should relate to the outcome of original examination. The learned Single Judge relied upon the following observations in an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in University of Delhi v Varun Kapur [ILR (2011) 4 Del 565; (2011) 179 DLT 549 (DB)]:
"13.5. In the supplementary exam, both candidates attained success. The results of the supplementary exam were, however, declared after the cut-off date fixed for the concerned academic session i.e. 2010-2011. 13.6. The cut-off date by which the candidates were required to produce documents to establish that they fulfilled the eligibility criteria (i.e. had acquired the basic qualification) was 31.08.2010.
13.7. The Division Bench while dealing with these facts and the issue that arose before it for consideration, which was, whether the result of the supplementary exam would relate to the date when the result for the main exam was declared, made the following observations in paragraph 7 to paragraph 12 of the judgement.
"7. There is merit in the plea sought to be urged by learned counsel for the University that if a cut-off date is prescribed by which eligibility has to be secured, an eligibility secured at a later date would be inconsequential, but the argument ignores the fact that where law requires something deemed to have come into existence, one cannot boggle down the consequence thereof and whatever logically flows from the deemed existence of a thing having come into being, the same has to be treated as having come into being.
8. In our opinion the University not having clarified, as observed by the learned Single Judge, that eligibility must be acquired at the main examination and not the supplementary, the alternative reasoning of the learned Single Judge merits acceptance.
OA-1460/2023 9
9. If the University has any issue on the second reasoning, it is easily capable of being rectified inasmuch as the University can, in future, clearly stipulate in the bulletin information that eligibility, de- jure as also de-facto, has to be obtained by the cut-off date and that those who are placed in compartment would be treated as ineligible. Further, we see no reason why the University should not scrutinize the cases of provisional admissions by the cut-off date and bring an end to the issue the day next.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that it is too late in the day for the University to fill up the two vacant seats if respondents are held ineligible candidates on the ground as urged by the University, notwithstanding that both of them have cleared the supplementary examination and are deemed to be candidates having obtained Graduate degree at par with the rest.
11. Why should we not be situationalist [sic: situationist] Judges and not rationalist Judges? We think we should. It is not a case where wholly ineligible persons or persons who have obtained admission by dubious means would continue as students of the University of Delhi in the Faculty of Law. If we hold against the respondents, two seats would go abegging [sic:
begging], and this in our opinion would be contrary to public interest and thus the compulsion of the situation compels us to be situationalist [sic: situationist] Judges and uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
12. For the future years, the University of Delhi can certainly incorporate a clause in the bulletin information as observed by us in para 9 above."
The learned Single Judge then observed:
"7.2. A perusal of the Division Bench judgement in Varun Kapur's case would show that unless the information bulletin/prospectus makes it crystal clear that the result of the supplementary exam would not relate to the main exam, the benefit has to be given to the candidate."
OA-1460/2023 10 "8. On the core issue that the result of the supplementary exam would relate to the main exam, the petitioner would necessarily succeed in view of the judgement of the Division Bench in Varun Kapur's case."
13. In Sanwal Ram (supra) the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court held thus:
"13. Neither counsel has cited any judgment in this regard. However, I find that the Division Bench of this Court in Sh. Prashant Srivastava Vs. C.B.S.E. AIR 2001 Delhi 28, relying on the earlier judgment dated 7th September, 1999 of another Division Bench in LPA No.385/1999 titled Neha Kattyar Vs. C.B.S.E., held that once the supplementary examination is passed, the result thereof would relate back to the first appearance in the examination and the effect of that would be treated as if the candidate had passed the examination on the date when the result was declared initially. Of course, both the cases were with respect to class XIIth examination and not with respect to Delhi University."
14. We have also perused the information bulletin/ prospectus of the Department of Economics, Himachal Pradesh University, made available by the learned counsel for the applicant, and find that there is no stipulation that result of supplementary examination would not relate to the main examination. We are of the opinion that the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abhishek Mourya (supra) and Sanwal Ram (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the result of the supplementary examination, i.e., first semester, should relate back to the main examination.
OA-1460/2023 11
15. We have gone through the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in R. Chitra & others (supra), and are of the view that the same is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances. We have also gone through the provision of Section 5(2) of the IGNOU Act, 1985. Both the provision of the Act and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court make it clear that pursuing dual degree courses, through regular mode or distance learning mode, or otherwise than provided in the regular scheme, during the same academic session, has not been recognised by the UGC. However, in the present case, the applicant obtained her MA degree for the academic session 2013-2015, and the B.Ed degree during the session 2015-2017. In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred to hereinabove, it cannot be said that these degrees obtained by the applicant are overlapping. The respondent No.1 could not have rejected the candidature of the applicant on this ground.
16. Accordingly we dispose of this Application by passing following orders:
(i) The impugned order dated 04.05.2023 cancelling the offer of appointment issued to the applicant to the post of PGT (Economics) Female under post code 67/20, is quashed and set aside.
OA-1460/2023 12
(ii) The respondent No.1 is directed to issue a fresh offer of appointment to the applicant forthwith. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Anand Mathur ) ( Justice Ranjit More ) Member (A) Chairman /as/