Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Rubina Begum D/O Late Mohd. Sharif vs Sh. K.S. Mehra on 6 August, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi CP No. 384/2012 in OA No.714/2009 Reserved on : 31.07.2012 Pronounced on : 06.08.2012 Honble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Singh, Acting Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Ms. Rubina Begum d/o late Mohd. Sharif W/o Mr. Roshan Tanvir R/o J-76, Ashiana Complex, Flat No.103, First Floor, Thokar No.4, Abul Fazal Enclave-I, New Delhi 110 025 Also at M-44, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi 110 025. Petitioner (By Advocate: Sh. M. Rais Farooqui) Versus 1. Sh. K.S. Mehra, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr. Shyma Prasad Civic Centre, J.N. Road, New Delhi 110 002. 2. Sh. V.K. Singh Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, New Delhi. 3. Sh. P.K. Tripathi, Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Gagan Mathur) : ORDER : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
Ms. Rubina Begum, one of the twenty seven applicants in OA No.714/2009, has moved this Contempt Petition alleging that the respondents had disobeyed the directions of the Tribunal and the same being deliberate and intentional the respondents should be proceeded against under Section 2(b) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Sections 17 and 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. We heard Shri M. Rais Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Primary Teacher by the respondents on contract basis in the year 2003 and she appeared in the competitive examination against Post Code No.166/2007 in response to the Advertisement No.08/2007 and qualified for the same, but the applicant was not appointed on the ground of overage as per the information dated 09.01.2009 received by the petitioner under the RTI Act from the office of the 2nd respondent. Shri Farooqui would submit that OA No. 714/2009, in which the petitioenr was one of the applicants, was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2010, directing the respondents (a) to declare the result of the applicants and (b) as per their result on age relaxation be offered appointments as Primary Teachers within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Instead of complying the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by this Tribunal, the 2nd respondent preferred a Writ Petition No.1641/2011 before the Honble High Court of Delhi against the Tribunal order dated 20.08.2010, wherein the applicant was impleaded as respondent no.22. He submitted that the said Writ Petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.11.2011 upholding the judgment of this Tribunal and extended the age relaxation to the applicants therein considering them as departmental candidates. It was further stated that the 2nd respondent declared the result against Post Code No.166/2007 but the name of the petitioner did not appear in the said Result No.168 vide letter no.F1(151)/CCII/DSSSB/08/Part/115-22 dated 19.03.2012. Shri Farooqui would contend that even though the status of petitioner was similar to other similarly situated candidates in the OA, whose result had been declared for the appointment of Primary Teacher (Urdu) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under Post Code No. 166/07, the petitioner did not find her name in the said list. Thus, she being aggrieved, sent a legal notice dated 03.04.2012 through her advocate to the authorities concerned requesting them to declare her result and give her appointment. But, as there was no response, the petitioner is aggrieved by the contemptuous inaction of the respondents. His contention is that the conduct of the respondents reflected least respect to this Tribunal and decided to flout the directions of the Tribunal by adopting the method of pick and choose. The petitioner has been deprived of her legitimate right of appointment to the post of Teacher Primary, MCD (Urdu) by the arbitrary, illegal and unlawful act of the respondents despite the specific orders of this Tribunal and Honble High Court of Delhi. The learned counsel for the applicant, would thus contend that the respondents being guilty of Contempt of Court were liable to be punished accordingly. Sh. Farooqui would further submit that the petitioner was possessing higher qualification as Urdu, which was one of the subjects at senior secondary i.e. 10+2 level whereas the prescribed qualification as per the the recruitment rules Urdu was required one of the subjects at secondary level, which is undoubtedly lower qualification than the one possessed by the petitioner and thus she was fully eligible to be considered for the post. Moreover, Sh. Farooqui contended that this issue was not raised by the respondents while replying to her under RTI Act and intimating her only about the point that she was overaged for the post. In this regard, he contended that it was not open to the respondents to go behind the orders passed by the Tribunal and upheld by the Honble High Court and traunct the effect of the order by raising fresh ground of petitioners eligibility. In this context, he placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Dhananjaya versus J. Vasudevan, reported in JT 1995(6)SC 234.
3. On receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, the respondents submitted their status of implementation note on 20.07.2012 through Sh. Vijay Pandita, learned counsel. The allegations raised by the petitioner in the CP were denied. He contended that the petitioners case was considered by the competent respondent i.e. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB in short) and on consideration it was found that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Teacher Primary, MCD (Urdu) prescribed that a candidate must have passed Urdu as a subject at Secondary level and the said eligibility being the essential qualification which the applicant did not have in her Secondary level examination, though she had passed the senior secondary (10+2) and has got Urdu as the subject but that would not fulfill the requirement under the Recruitment Rules. Shri Pandita would, therefore, submit that DSSSB having considered petitioners case found her not eligible for the post of Teacher Primary, MCD (Urdu) under the Post Code No.166/07 as she was not eligible as per the conditions prescribed under the recruitment rules. Sh. Pandita would further contend that there was no deliberate and intentional violation of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Honble High Court in the case of the petitioner as the respondents have passed the order dated 08.06.2012 wherein the petitioner had been intimated that she was not eligible to be recommended for the post of Teacher Primary, MCD (Urdu) under Post Code No.166/07. He, therefore, submitted that the respondents had passed the said order in compliance of the judgments passed by the Tribunal and Honble High Court. Therefore, the respondents should be discharged from the contempt.
4. Before we dwell on the contentions raised in the contempt petition, it would be appropriate for us to refer to the judgment which has been alleged to have been disobeyed by the respondents. This Tribunal has passed order dated 20.08.2010 in OA No. 714/2009 wherein the main issue was that the applicants sought declaration of result for the post of Teacher Primary, MCD and appointment of the same on relaxation of age as they joined MCD as Primary Teacher in the year 2001 onwards when they were all within age limit. Considering the said appointment as contract Teachers and the facts and circumstances of the case, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal passed the following order:-
10. Resultantly, the OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to declare the result of applicants and as per their result on age relaxation be offered appointments as Primary Teachers within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of this Tribunal, the DSSSB and another challenged the Tribunal order before the Honble High Court of Delhi and the same was decided in WP(C) No. 1641/2011. Honble High Court, after considering catena of judgments, decided that the contentions raised by the parties did not warrant any interference with the orders rendered by the Tribunal. Honble High Courts order in the said case reads as follows:-
16. In view thereof, we dismiss this writ petition as devoid of any merits; at the same time we clarify that the only effect of the order of the learned Tribunal or this judgment would be that the respondents would be entitled to be considered for the post of Primary Teachers on regular basis, whether they are able to get selected or not on their merits is altogether different question which has not been gone into by us.
6. This CP has been filed against the non-compliance of the above orders in respect of the petitioner. At this stage, we take note that out of 27 applicants in the OA, only the petitioner has filed the CP. It is also noted that the respondents have considered the applicants case and found that she was not eligible to apply for the post of Primary Teacher, MCD (Urdu) as she did not possess the qualification of Urdu as a subject at secondary level. It is further seen that the Recruitment Rules for the post envisages the above aspect and, therefore, the DSSSB came to the conclusion in its order dated 08.06.2012 that the petitioner does not possess essential qualification to be considered for the post of Teacher Primary, MCD (Urdu).
7. The arguments raised by the petitioner that as the respondents under the RTI Act intimated the petitioner that the overage is the only criteria for her non-selection, they are estopped to raise the issue of qualification detrimental to the petitioner getting selected to be appointed to the said post. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the page no. 282 of the OA in which DSSSB has furnished information to the petitioner under RTI Act, relevant part of which is extracted below for proper appreciation:-
[3] The applicant has obtained less marks than the last selected candidates under Post Code 164-165/07 and not eligible for post code 166/07 as she has passed ETE in 2001-02 and not covered for age relaxation as ordered by Honble Division Bench of High Court.
8. After careful consideration of all the contentions and going through the above information given to the petitioner under the RTI Act, we are to consider whether there has been deliberate or intentional disobedience of the orders passed by the Tribunal and Honble High Court of Delhi. The respondents have considered the petitioners case and have passed a speaking and reasoned order. The petitioner may be aggrieved by the said order and may be finding certain contradictory statements made in the order vis-`-vis the information she received under RTI Act from the respondents. The powers of the Tribunal in the contempt petition is rather limited and it cannot go into the merits of the case at this stage. We have to see as to whether there has been reasonable and satisfactory compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and Honble High Court. On carefully scrutiny of the order passed by the DSSSB dated 08.06.2012, we find that they have satisfactorily complied with the directions of the Tribunal and Honble High Court and as such there is no contempt nor there is any deliberate or intentional disobedience of the orders.
9. Before we may part with this order, it would be appropriate for us to refer to the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in T.R. Dhananjaya versus J. Vasudevans case (supra). In the said case, the respondents have not implemented the order but made an attempt to circumvent the same and deny the benefit to the petitioner. When the claim inter se had been finalized and the claim in respect of the petitioner had become final, it was no longer open to the respondents to go behind the orders passed by the competent court to obviate the effect thereof. In the said case the Honble Supreme Court held that respondents have committed a deliberate and intentional attempt not to implement the directions of the competent court and, therefore, the respondents were held to have committed the contempt. In the instant OA, it is not a case similar to the relied on judgment. The law laid in the said judgment is distinguishable and not applicable to the order passed in respect of the petitioner. The respondents have passed an order in respect of the petitioner on 08.06.2012 giving sufficient reasons, which we have considered to be the satisfactory compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal. It is trite law that the competent authority may pass some order which in the opinion of the affected parties may be right or may be wrong, however, that would not be construed as deliberate and intentional disobedience of the orders passed by the competent court.
10. In the totality of the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated within, we come to the considered conclusion that the respondents have not committed any deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order of this Tribunal upheld by Honble High Court. Rather they satisfactorily complied with the directions of the Tribunal as well as of the Honble High Court of Delhi. Thus, we do not find that there has been any contempt in the present case. Therefore, the present Contempt Petition is closed and notices are discharged. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 08.06.2012 in case she is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Alok Kumar Singh)
Member (A) Acting Chairman
/naresh/