Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Swati Sharma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 30 April, 2024
1
Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3440/2017
This is the 30th Day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Swati Sharma (General)
D/o Sh. B. K. Sharma
R/o 6/V/42, Lodhi Road Complex,
Delhi - 110003
Aged about 28 years
2. Pawan Kumar (OBC)
S/o Sh. Desh Ram
R/o G-14, Dharampura Colony,
Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043
Aged about 32 years
3. Vinay Kumar (OBC)
S/o Sh. Dharambeer
R/o R-8, Street No. 2, Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
Aged about 29 years
4. Pooja Jain (UR)
D/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain
R/o A-10, Nand Ram Park, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059
Aged about 29 years
5. Indu (SC)
D/o Sh. Swarn Kumar
R/o Kaunt Road, Shanti Nagar,
Street No. 6, First House, Bhiwani,
Haryana
Aged about 29 years
2
Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017
(Candidates to the post of TGT (Computer Science))
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
5th Level, 'A' Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Secretary,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
New Delhi
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director, (GNCT of Delhi)
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
3
Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) Hold and declare that the applicants are eligible for the post of TGT (Computer Science) Post Code 192/14
(b) Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicants to the post of TGT (Computer Science) (Post Code 192/14)
(c) Accord all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits.
(d) Award costs of the proceedings, and
(e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper per in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for applicant states that he has confined his relief in terms of the amended memo of parties which has been filed on 04..11.2023. He states that as per amended memo of parties, Applicant No. 3 i.e. Vinay Kumar has already joined the services pursuant to offer of appointment. However, consequential relief is yet to be adjudicated. In so far as other applicants are concerned, i.e. applicant No. 1, 2, 4 and 5, he presses for the relief on the analogy of the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench in 4 Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017 various OAs, particularly in OA No. 708/2019 Arvind Dabas & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 27.04.2024 along with batch matters.
2.1 Learned counsel for applicant further states that the subject matter of the present case has consistently been followed by coordinate Benches of this Tribunal where one of us [Member(J)] was also a party i.e. in the case of Swati Malik & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors., OA No. 1046/2019 decided on 17.05.2023, and also in Praveen Malik & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors., OA No. 1470/2023 decided on 17.05.2023.
3. Taking note of the objections by learned counsel for respondents which have already discussed in detail in Arvind Dabas (supra), we find that the matter is strikingly similar. In the present application also the applicant has higher qualification of MCA. It is further observed that the facts and circumstances of Arvind Dabas (supra) case is similar to the present case. The offer of appointment issued to the present applicants still subsists. Since a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has taken a holistic view in the matter while appreciating the arguments addressed on behalf of their respective counsels, for ready reference, we reproduce the 5 Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017 order passed and observations made by the Tribunal in Arvind Dabas (supra):-
"15. This is, thus, a case where the applicants are possessing higher qualification than what is prescribed. This higher qualification is, however, not unrelated to the qualification sought. The academic courses in various universities and institutes prescribe subject content and papers at different levels based on the requirement of the academic exposure and competence to be acquired by the students. In the instant case, various qualifications have been prescribed towards eligibility. One such is BCA (Bachelors of Computer Applications) which makes a candidate eligible for the post of TGT (Computer Science), whereas the degree of MCA (Master of Computer Applications) is not being considered as the qualification required. There is another contradiction whereby a qualification of Graduation in any subject with „A‟ level course from DOEACC has been prescribed as qualification. This amounts to a Graduate in any subject, which could well be a Language or subject of Humanities or Social Science, absolutely unrelated to Computer Science, and, therefore, in no way relevant to the teaching of Computer Science. However, by even having a Graduation in any discipline and only by acquiring „A‟ level course from DOEACC which is equivalent to first year course of MCA, the candidates are being considered eligible for the post of TGT (Computer Science). This clearly means that, on one side, a BCA is required or a Graduate in Computer Science is required or a B.E./B.Tech. in Computer Science or Information Technology is required and, on the other side, one of the qualification is Graduation in any subject and only „A‟ level course from DOEACC. Similarly, M.Sc. (Computer Science) is not a qualification whereas B.Sc. (Computer Science) is acceptable. The concerned respondents have already examined this issue and arrived at a conclusion after the comparison of course content dealing with the subject, that all the papers of „A‟ level course from DOEACC are also part of the „B‟ level and, therefore, those who have acquired the degree of MCA possess the required qualification prescribed for both „A‟ and „B‟ level course from DOEACC. We are well aware that it is not within the scope of this Tribunal to take further academic analysis to arrive at an equivalence, especially when the respondents themselves have undertaken this exercise and have arrived at a conclusion as is evident in the report quoted above.6
Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017
16. We, however, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the respondents undertaking an exercise and arriving at a conscious decision to remove the glaring anomalies. The contention of the respondents that the amendment to the RRs will have to be undertaken is not tenable as in the present selection process, the applicants have not only appeared but have been declared successful. Their eligibility having been decided by the department in terms of the report of the then Direction (Education), cannot be kept on hold for the proposed amendment to the RRs. It has been further brought to our notice that the respondents have granted appointment to those who were having Advance Diploma in Computer Applications treating them as equivalent to „A‟ level course from DOEACC in terms of MHRD Notification dated 01.03.1995. The MHRD Notification is as under:
"Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) New Delhi, dated 1st March, 1995 NOTIFICATION (43) No. F. 18-23/92-TD.V/TS-IV(.) On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, the Government of India has decided to recognise the „O‟ level and A' level examinations conducted by the Computer Society of India(CSI) under the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) scheme as equivalent to Foundation course and Advanced Diploma level course, respectively, for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government.
-sd/-
(VIJAY BHARAT) DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL ADVISER(T)& SECRETARY, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS"
From the above, it is clear that MHRD has recognized „O‟ level and „A‟ level examinations conducted by the CSI (Computer Society of India) under DOEACC scheme as equivalent to Foundation course and Advanced Diploma level course, respectively. The respondents have taken note of the qualification as given in the MHRD Notification for „A‟ level examination under DOEACC and have started accepting the same as equivalent to Advanced Diploma level course, without making the required changed in the RRs and in the Advertisement. On the other hand, their own equivalence as worked out in the Committee‟s report by the Director (Education) has been kept on hold and the applicants who 7 Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017 were possessing MCA/M.Sc. (Computer Science) and have been recommended by the respondents for appointment have not yet been appointed.
17. We have also observed that the selected candidates who were issued offers of appointment, are in possession of MCA and M.Sc. in Computer Science. MCA is the higher qualification over BCA, which is prescribed, and also M.Sc. in Computer Science over Graduation in Computer Science. Both these qualification not only are higher qualifications but also subsume the subjects taught in their Graduation level course. These aspects have also been taken note in the successive orders passed by this Tribunal and also by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. The respondents in the report of the Director (Education) have already decided on equivalence. In view of this, the process of selection cannot be kept on hold forever.
18. In view of the above mentioned, we are of the view that the decision taken by the respondents on the basis of the report of the then Director (Education) establishing equivalence and the subsequent advice given to the Chairman, DSSSB vide letter dated 16.05.2018 do not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. On the basis of this, the applicants who have already been issued the offers of appointment in this selection for the post of TGT (Computer Science) vide Post Code No.192/14, shall be considered for appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science).
19. We, therefore, allow the O.As. directing the respondents to appoint the applicants who have already been issued offers of appointment, on completion of necessary formalities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The relief shall be limited to only the applicants in these O.As., who have already been given offers of appointment. However, they shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary and wages but shall be entitled to other consequential benefits like seniority etc.
20. All the pending MAs also stand disposed of. " 8
Item No.59/ C-4 OA No. 3440/2017
4. In view of the above, we cannot take a divergent view in the matter. We, therefore, allow the OA with direction to the respondents to issue necessary orders of joining after completion of necessary formalities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
4.1 We further clarify that the reliefs shall be confined to the applicants who have already been offered offer of appointment. The applicants shall not be entitled to arrears of salary and wages but shall be entitled to all consequential benefits like seniority etc. in their respective categories. The consequential reliefs shall also be extended to Applicant No. 3-Vinay Kumar who has already joined the services. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/daya/