Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Seema M R vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 2 December, 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00660/2022
Friday, this the 2nd day of December, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Seema M R., Aged 43 years, W/o Arun G
PRT, Kendriya Vidyalaya, No.1
Naval Base, Kochi -682 004
Residing at: 21/1706, Karthika
Palluruthy, Kochi-682 006, Kerala
Mob: 8921130215
Email: [email protected] - Applicant
[By Advocate : Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy]
Versus
1. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeej Singh Marg
New Delhi 110 016.
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Regional Office, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 020.
3. The Joint Commsisioner (Admn. 1)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ)
18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeej Singh Marg
New Delhi 110 016.
4. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan No.1
Naval Base, Kochi - 682 004. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr.K.I.Mayankutty Mather]
The application having been heard on 25.11.2022, the Tribunal on
02.12.2022 passed the following:
O.A. 660 of 2022 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal Applicant is a Post Graduate in Chemistry. She had obtained her Higher Secondary Certificate from Orissa with First Class with compulsory subjects English, Alternative English, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Extra optional subject of Mathematics. Later she took her B.Sc(Hons) degree in Chemistry with Mathematics and Physics in all the three years, with distinction from the Berhampur University in Odisha. She took Post Graduation in Chemistry with First Class from the Bharathiar University, Coimbatore. She took B.Ed degree from Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam with First Class. For the last more than six years she is working as Primary Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Naval Base, Kochi. Pursuant to the Annexure-A1 notification for promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Maths she made an application for appearing for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. As per the procedure, the application has to be submitted on-line and the link has to be created by the Controlling Officer. But the grievance of the applicant is that the respondents are acting in arbitrary and biased manner and will provide link only to a chosen few, who they consider eligible to apply. O.A. 660 of 2022 3 Even though the applicant holds B.Sc (Hons) degree in Chemistry having studied Physics and Mathematics for all the three years, she has not been recognised to apply for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Mathematics. Aggrieved by the same, though she made representations before the respondents, they have not obliged and that made her to approach this Tribunal seeking a declaration that Annexure-A1 to the extent it holds that Primary Teachers with qualification of B.Sc Honours in subjects other than Maths are not entitled to be considered for promotion as TGT(Maths) which is arbitrary, discriminatory and hence violative of the Constitutional guarantee enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. She further seeks a direction to the respondents to consider her for promotion as TGT(Maths) along with those who have been considered in Annexure-A1. The applicant submits that she had applied for the post of TGT(Maths) having regard to the fact that she possesses B.Sc(Hons) Degree in Chemistry with Physics and Mathematics after studying Mathematics in all the three years. Referring to education qualification for TGT(Maths) in Annexure-A1 it is pointed out that candidate who had studied Mathematics in all the years of graduation with any two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science and Statistics is entitled to apply for the post of TGT(Maths). In case of Honors in Mathematics the candidate should have O.A. 660 of 2022 4 studied Maths in all the years of graduation with any of the two subjects indicated above. Therefore, according to the applicant, since she had studied Mathematics in all the three years of her course of study for B.Sc (Hons), she is entitled to apply for the post of TGT(Maths). Secondly, referring to Annexure-A7 Recruitment Rules, it has been pointed out that there are only two options from her stream to go high in the ladder, that is opting to aspire TGT(Maths) and TGT(Science). In the case of TGT(Maths) candidates having Bachelor Degree in Maths with any of the subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science, Statistics are entitled to apply for the post. But for the post of TGT(Science), Botony, Zoology and Chemistry are the subjects. That means, if the interpretation of the respondents is accepted, a teacher like the applicant who is having Post Graduation and also B.Ed Degree will stagnate, can never aspire for the post of TGT. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be interdicted.
2. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant also relied on Annexure-A8 order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. According to the applicant, in a similar case similarly situated candidates have been allowed to participate in the limited departmental competitive test and that order has been confirmed by the O.A. 660 of 2022 5 Delhi High Court in Annexure-A9 judgment; even though a SLP was moved by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the same stands dismissed by Annexure-A10. Therefore, the applicant who is similarly placed as the candidates in Annexure-A8 is entitled to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and the stand taken by the respondents is illegal.
3. When the O.A. had come up for admission on 22.11.2022, Adv.Sri.Vineeth Komalachandran, representing Sri.K.I.Mayankutty Mather, Standing Counsel for the respondents, entered appearance. He contended that the O.A. is not maintainable since the applicant does not possess necessary qualifications for considering her for appointment as TGT(Maths). However, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant for some time, when we raised doubts regarding the eligibility of the applicant, in the absence of documents to prove that she had studied Mathematics for all the three years of graduation course in B.Sc (Hons) in Barhampur University, the learned counsel sought time. We also directed the learned counsel to produce the syllabi or curriculum of the degree course. Accordingly, the matter stood adjourned to 25.11.2022. Then we heard the learned counsel on both sides in detail.
O.A. 660 of 2022 6
4. On 25.11.2022 the learned counsel for the applicant made available the mark lists of the applicant in respect of second and third years of B.Sc(Hons) course from Barhampur University. According to the learned counsel, even though the applicant had studied Mathematics in all the three years, there was no examination for the first year, that Paper-I was in respect of the course of study in first year and Paper-II in second year, but examinations were conducted in second year only. Similarly, for Papers-III and IV in Mathematics, examination was held in the final year and therefore, Annexure-A11 and A12 clearly indicate that she had studied Mathematics in all the three years. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant happened to prosecute her graduation in Berhampur while she was staying with her father in connection with his employment and now they have moved to the native place, now, after a lapse of about 23 years it is difficult to trace the syllabi and the curriculum. However, she filed an affidavit asserting that she had studied Mathematics for all the three years for her study.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the qualifications shown in Annexure-A1 are not part of the Recruitment Rules, that the decisions of the Principal Bench confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court are clear indicators, so that the applicant is O.A. 660 of 2022 7 entitled to participate in the Limited Department Competitive Examination. Referring to Annexure-A7, according to the learned counsel, if a person possesses essential qualification of Bachelor's degree with atleast 50% marks in the concerned subjects/combination of subjects and in aggregate, he is entitled to complete for the selection. After all, according to the learned counsel, Annexure-A1 is under challenge, so that it is only appropriate that the applicant be provisionally permitted to participate in the LDCE, that everything can be determined at the final stage of the proceedings after hearing the parties in detail. Meanwhile, she will be able to produce the syllabus also.
6. Adv.Sri.Vineeth Komalachandran strongly opposed the contentions of the respondents. According to learned counsel, even if it is assumed that the applicant had studied Mathematics in all the three years, that fact will not change the situation. The Recruitment Rules is not under challenge and Annexure-A1 clearly indicates that one should possess Degree in Maths for considering for the post of TGT(Maths). In the absence of possessing the qualification, the applicant cannot be considered for the post. So, according to him, the affidavit or the marklists produced by the applicant are of no help. Moreover, learned counsel also invited our attention to the decisions of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. 660 of 2022 8 O.A.685/2019 dated 03.09.2020 and O.A.1292/2019 dated 01.11.2019, where in identical situations the Tribunal had held that unless the candidate has necessary educational qualifications, such a case cannot be considered and therefore the application is not to be entertained. He also pointed out that the decision of the Principal Bench in O.A.685/2019 stands confirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.1986 of 2021 dated 15.02.2021.
7. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions. We have already noticed that the applicant is a Post Graduate in Chemistry with B.Ed Degree. She took graduation in Chemistry by obtaining B.Sc (Hons) Degree in Chemistry with Physics and Mathematics as subsidiary subjects. Now the moot aspect is whether a person holding B.Sc (Hons) degree in Chemistry with Physics and Mathematics as subsidiary subjects, even assuming that for the entire three years she had studied Mathematics, can be legitimately considered for the post of TGT(Maths). After considering the rival contentions and materials, our answer is in the negative. Firstly, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, even though at the earlier portion of the Annexure-A1 notification against TGT(Maths), it is stated that applicant should have studied Mathematics in all the years of graduation with any two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science, Statistics, further down it is O.A. 660 of 2022 9 stated, which cannot be lost sight of by the Tribunal, that the candidates having 'B.A.(Hons) in Maths and B.Sc (Hons) in any subject other than Maths are not eligible for the post of TGT(Maths)'. In fact this specification in qualification in Annexure-A1 completely displaces the case of the applicant and that alone is sufficient to say that she has no legs to stand upon.
8. Secondly and more importantly, what is to be looked into is the Recruitment Rules, Annexure-A7, where against educational and other qualifications, 'e' deals with TGT(Maths). Here the qualification is 'Bachelor Degree in Maths with any two of the following subjects: Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science, Statistics'. In other words, it is elementary and fundamental that one should possess degree in Maths for aspiring for the post of TGT(Maths).
9. A Trained Graduate Teacher in Maths is expected to engage students in classes VIII to X. It may be true that the applicant might have studied Mathematics as subsidiary subject in all the three years. But we cannot forget the fact that the applicant's main subject is Chemistry and Mathematics and Physics are her subsidiary subjects. A person who had studied Mathematics as the main subject alone can be considered for the post of TGT(Maths).
O.A. 660 of 2022 10
10. It is true that Annexure-A1 contains something more than the qualifications as against the qualifications required for the post of TGT(Maths) in Annexure-A7. But in our view, the educational qualifications mentioned in Annexure-A1 do not, in any way, militate against the essential qualification shown in the Recruitment Rules, nor does it dilute the minimum required qualification. It is peremptory that for competing for the post of TGT(Maths) one should have basic degree in Mathematics. In other words, a person who had studied Mathematics as subsidiary subject is not entitled to be considered.
11. The decision of the Principal Bench in Annexure-A8 is clearly distinguishable. In Annexure-A8, two teachers who were holding degree in B.Sc (Hons) with Chemistry and Mathematics and B.Sc(Hons) with Physics and Maths respectively and M.Sc(Maths) were treated eligible for appointment to the post of TGT(Maths). It is clear that both the candidates had M.Sc Mathematics degree to their credit. Therefore, the Principal Bench said that the rejection of their application was illegal on the ground that their graduation was in other subjects. Annexure-A8 order of the Principal Bench was based on the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Government of NCT of Delhi and others v. Sachin Gupta which in turn was based on Manju Pal vs Government of National O.A. 660 of 2022 11 Capital Territory of Delhi [2002(61) DRJ 58]. In Manju Pal, quoted supra, the facts seems to be that the candidate had applied for the post of Assistant Primary Teacher in Hindi. But her application was rejected on the premise that she had not studied Hindi at the Higher Secondary Level and thus found not eligible for being appointed. At the same time, that applicant had studied B.A. Hindi and had a degree in Hindi. That means, she possessed higher qualification than the qualification required for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. Therefore, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court found that, it cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that candidate possessing higher qualification like B.A. with Hindi or M.A. with Hindi will be less efficient in teaching primary classes than a person possessing lesser qualification like Higher Secondary with Hindi.
12. In the case of the candidates in Annexure-A8, both of them had Post Graduation in Maths. Even though for graduation they had only B.Sc(Hons) degree in Chemistry and Physics, for the purpose of TGT(Maths) their post graduate degree in Mathematics was reckoned. Here the facts are different. The applicant is the holder of B.Sc (Hons) degree in Chemistry, had Post Graduation also in Chemistry. She does not O.A. 660 of 2022 12 possess any degree in Mathematics either at the Graduation level or at Post Graduation level.
13. Per contra, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of the Principal Bench in O.A.685/2019 is very relevant and squarely applies to the facts of this case. There also the post notified was Trained Graduate Teacher in Mathematics. The candidate one Subhashree Dash, who held B.Tech Degree, contended that she had studied Mathematics for the B.Tech; on that strength she applied for the post. The required qualifications are one and the same. Even though under a mistaken notion she was called for the interview, later, on finding out the mistake, she was informed that her application cannot be considered. That decision was challenged before the Principal Bench and by order dated 03.09.2020 the Principal Bench dismissed the application holding that she did not possess the required qualifications. That order stands confirmed by the Delhi High Court in the above stated W.P(C) 1986/2021. The learned counsel has also shown us copy of the order of the Principal Bench in O.A.1292/2019, where also an identical situation was considered and since the applicant did not possess necessary educational qualification the application was found not entertainable despite the fact that the candidate was called for interview by mistake.
O.A. 660 of 2022 13
14. In the case of the applicant what is important is Annexure-A7 Recruitment Rules, where it is very clear that a person for the post of TGT(Maths) should possess Bachelor Degree in Mathematics with any two of the subjects, Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science or Statistics. What is essential is the degree in Maths. Admittedly, the applicant does not have degree in Mathematics and held B.Sc degree in Chemistry. Even though she had studied Mathematics for the all the years, she cannot be considered for the post of TGT(Maths). Absence of a degree in Maths, cuts the very root of the case of the applicant.
15. It may be true that a person in the category of the applicant who holds a post graduate degree in Chemistry, as matters stand now, cannot aspire to a higher post. But that will not salvage the position of the applicant and she cannot be heard to stake claim to the post of TGT(Maths).
16. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, Health Department and another v. Anitha Puri and others [(1996) 6 SCC 282], if the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all relevant factors, then the Court should not ordinarily interfere with such a selection and evaluation. Here, Annexure-A7 Recruitment Rules is sacrosanct. Annexure-A7 is not under O.A. 660 of 2022 14 challenge. Annexure-A1 notification is in conformity with the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the applicant does not have an arguable case to pursue the O.A.
17. It is also important to notice the decision in Bihar Public Service Commission and others v. Kamini and others [(2007) 5 SCC 519], where qualification required for the post was B.Sc(Hons) Zoology with a two year's diploma in Fisheries Science. The expert committee constituted by the PSC opined that a person can be said to be an Honours in Zoology if he studies Zoology as principal subject having 8 papers and not as subsidiary or optional subject having two papers. The respondent obtained degree in B.Sc(Hons) in Chemistry with Zoology and Botany as subsidiary/optional subjects. The Commission cancelled her candidature. The decision was upheld by the Apex Court holding that Court ordinarily would not interfere with the opinion of the expert committee as regards qualifications and eligibility of candidates. Here, without offending the basic essential qualification, the incorporation in Annexure-A1 that 'BA(Hons) in Maths and B.Sc(Hons) in any subject other than Maths are not eligible for the post TGT(Maths)' cannot be ultravires Annexure-A7 nor arbitrary or unconstitutional.
O.A. 660 of 2022 15
18. After evaluating all the materials made before us, we find that the applicant does not have a prima facie case and has no case to proceed against. She does not posses essential qualification for the the post of TGT(Maths).
In the result, the O.A. is dismissed in limine. No costs.
Dated this the 2nd December, 2022
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
O.A. 660 of 2022 16
Applicant's Annexures
Annexure-A1: Memorandum bearing No.F.11055 /01/2022/
KVS/RPS/LDCE-/ Teach and NT dated 02.11.2022, issued by the third respondent.
Annexure A2: A true copy of the certificate indicating the above aspect dated 09.09.1998 issued by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa Annexure A3: A true copy of the degree certificate bearing No. 000687 dated Nil issued by the Berhampur University, Odisha. Annexure A4: A true copy of the certificate issued by the Faculty of Science, Bharathiar University dated 9th April 2009. Annexure-A5: A true copy of the certificate bearing Register No.71519 dated 11th January, 2007.
Annexure-A6: A true copy of the communication bearing no. 11013/14/ 3203232/ KVS/RPS/LDCE/ Court Case/792-801 dated 16.11.2022, issued by the third respondent.
Annexure-A7: A true copy of the Recruitment Rules to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs), published under Office memorandum no. 11019/1/2011/KVS HQ/ RPS dated 13.07.2012.
Annexure-A8: A true copy of the order of Hon'ble C.A.T., Principal Bench in O.A.No.3387/2015 order dated 15.11.2017 Annexure-A9: A true copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.318/2019 dated 15.01.2019 rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Annexure-A10: A true copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P(Civil) Diary No.3448/2020 Annexure-All: A true copy of Mark List issued after the examination held during the second year of study.
O.A. 660 of 2022 17Annexure-A12: A true copy of the Mark List for the final year bearing No.BU 042209 dated 24.07.1999.
Respondents' Annexures NIL ********