Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Braham Parkash Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 21 February, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH TA No.463/2009 NEW DELHI THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) HONBLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J) 1. Shri Braham Parkash Sharma S/o Sh. Balram Sharma R/o RZ-45B, M Block Dhansa Road, Gopal Nagar, Nazafgarh, New Delhi-110043 2. Shri Ram Babu Sharma S/o Sh. Gansi Lal Sharma R/o T-77, Sarai Kale Khan New Delhi-110013 3. Shri Shiv Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Kanti Parshad R/o H.No. 2720, Gali No. 68 Molar Bandh Extn. E-2 Block, Badarpur, Delhi-110044 4. Kumari Ram Dulari House No.330 P & N, Bukhtawar Pur, Delhi-110036 5. Shri Fath Singh House No. C-II-6, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi 6. Shri Rishi Pal Singh S/o Sh. Nand Ram Singh 6250, Arya Samaj Temple, Navi Karim Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 7. Shri Rishi Pal Singh S/o Sh. Alam Chand R/o 1/4184, Ram Nagar Extn. Loni Road, Shahdara Delhi-110032 Petitioners (By Advocate: Shri Vinay Sabharwal) VERSUS Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Rajinder Khatter) ORDER MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) :
Writ Petition No.5437/2008 was filed by the petitioners in the Honble High Court of Delhi in the year 2008, which was transferred by order dated 3.02.2009 to this Tribunal on acquiring jurisdiction over the service matters of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The petition has been re-numbered as TA 463/2009.
2. The petitioners are Group `D employees of MCD. In the year 1998-99, one per cent posts of Primary Teachers in schools run by the MCD were reserved for Group `D employees. A decision was also taken to amend the Recruitment Rules (RRs) whereby one per cent quota was fixed for promotion of Group `D employees through limited departmental competitive test. A notification dated 3.06.1999 was issued inviting applications for the post of Primary Teachers. The petitioners applied for the said post and after verification of their documents and requisite qualification, they were issued roll numbers for the same. However, the respondents did not conduct the examination and kept the matter pending. Meanwhile, the Honble Supreme Court delivered a judgment in Yogesh Kumar & others Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548 which stated that the candidates possessing higher qualifications for the post of Primary Teacher will not be eligible in view of the fact that a lower qualification is prescribed under the RRs. Accordingly a proposal for deleting the requirement of B.Ed. as eligibility qualification for the post of Primary Teacher was made but the amendment was not notified. Meanwhile vide notification dated 13.07.2007, the qualification of B.Ed. in the RRs for Primary Teacher has been deleted and replaced by B.El.Ed. It was the contention of the applicants that their right to the post of Primary Teacher is to be determined as on the date when the recruitment process has been set into motion i.e. 3.06.1999 and, therefore, the amended RRs may not cover the case of the applicants. Accordingly, amendment was made in the prayer clause of the Writ Petition which reads as follows:
I. To consider the applicants for promotion to the post of Teacher (Primary) as per the recruitment rules prevailing as on 3.6.99, then the notification commencing the recruitment process for the said posts was issued and the recruitment process was started; and II. Presuming without admitting the amendment notification dated 13th July 2007 to be valid and operative, the Applicants be held to be not covered by the said notification since they had already been treated as special category persons and reservations for them had already been created and their rights of consideration are saved by Clause No. 6 of the alleged amendment recruitment rules.
3. Reply has been filed on behalf of MCD wherein it has been stated by them that in the RRs, there was no provision of promotion of group `D employees of MCD to the post of Primary Teacher. The applicants are relying upon resolution no.23 of the MCD taken in meeting held on 21.07.1998 placed at Annexure P-1 (page 24 of the paper book) wherein it was proposed that one per cent of the total vacancies of a year may be filled up by promotion from group `D category, if otherwise eligible and necessary amendment was to be made in the RRs. Accordingly vide resolution no.28 of the Appointments, Promotions, Disciplinary and Allied Matters Committee dated 21.07.1998, it was resolved that one per cent of the posts of Primary Teacher be filled up from group `D officials but the amendment was never notified. The decision to hold the limited departmental competitive test for one per cent posts of Primary Teachers for group `D employees was withdrawn due to the reason that there were other categories of employees who were agitating for similar relief. The entire matter was reviewed and it was decided not to hold the departmental competitive test. It has been stated by the respondents that under the notified RRs, Group `D employees are promoted to the post of Attendance Assistant Helper and they can also compete for departmental examination for the post of Lower Division Clerk. It has been categorically denied by the respondents that there is any provision for promoting Group `D employees to the post of Primary Teacher or that B.Ed. is a qualification for the post of Primary Teacher. According to the respondents, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), a body nominated by an Act of Parliament, has laid down qualifications for different categories of teachers. As far as Primary Teachers are concerned, the essential qualification is two years teachers training course or Bachelor of Elementary Education. NCTE has not considered B.Ed. as requisite qualification for the post of Teacher (Primary). It is also stated by the respondents that RRs for the post of Teacher (Primary) have been notified on 13.07.2007 and the DSSSB has also conducted competitive examinations on 15th and 16th June 2008 and on 15th February 2009 for the post of Teacher (Primary). In the notified RRs, there is no provision for promotion quota and, therefore, there is no basis for granting the relief asked for by the applicants.
4. Additional affidavit has also been filed by the respondents on 14.09.2010 wherein the same facts have been reiterated. There is no provision in the RRs for promotion to the post of Primary Teacher for Group `D employees. The resolution was passed on 14.09.1998 proposing that one per cent posts of Assistant Teacher (Primary) may be filled from Class IV employees and a circular dated 3.06.1999 was issued accordingly but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 2.02.2001. There are other avenues of promotion for Group `D employees of MCD. NCTE has prescribed requisite qualifications for the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) and Primary Teacher. Essential qualifications for the post of Primary Teacher is diploma or certificate in elementary teacher training of duration not less than two years or Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.). B.Ed. is the requisite qualification for the posts of TGT/ PGT. In view of above, there is no ground for considering promotion of the applicants to the post of Primary Teacher.
5. It is the contention of the applicants that their case is to be considered as on 3.06.1999 when the vacancies existed and the process of recruitment had been set in motion. In support of their claim, they have cited Arjun Singh Rathore and others Vs. B.N. Chaturvedi and others, (2007) 11 SCC 605 wherein it has been held that vacancies arising prior to promulgation of new rules were to be filled in accordance with old rules. They have also referred to B.L. Gupta and another Vs. M.C.D., JT 1998 (7) SC 225 where also it has been held that all posts prior to amendment were to be filled in accordance with the unamended rules.
6. We have carefully considered the contentions of the applicants along with the contentions of the respondents.
7. As seen from the record, the basis for claiming one per cent promotion quota of the posts of Primary Teacher for Group `D employees in MCD was only on account of resolution passed by the General Body. The RRs were never amended and, therefore, that provision was not made in the RRs at any point of time. The exercise to conduct departmental competitive examination in pursuance of a resolution was also withdrawn by the respondents and subsequently new RRs were notified in the year 2007 on the basis of which direct recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher is being made in schools run by the MCD and there is no quota for promotion. We are of the view that promotion quota can come into existence only when a provision is made in the RRs. This was never done in the case of Primary Teachers of MCD and, therefore, there is no substance in the claim being made by the applicants in this TA. It is no doubt true that a circular was issued in compliance of the resolution passed and the examination was also about to be conducted but it was not held and the matter was reviewed by the respondents.
8. We are of the opinion that respondents had every right to review the matter and they have taken the decision regarding the RRs notified on the recommendations of NCTE which is an advisory body in the sector of education in the country. Accordingly, no intervention is called for. TA is dismissed. No costs.
(V.Ajay Kumar) (Mrs. Manjulika Gautam)
Member (J) Member (A)
/dkm/