Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Minakshi vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 31 July, 2018
OA No.2781/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.2781/2018
M.A. No.3098/2018
Reserved On:26.07.2018
Pronounced On:31.07.2018
HON'BLE MS. NITA CHOWDHURY, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. S.N. TERDAL, MEMBER (J)
1. Minakshi, aged about 20 years,
Primary Teacher,
D/o Shri Ashok Kumar,
R/oH.No.108, VPO Nangal Thakran,
Delhi-29.
2. Priya Malik, aged about 21 years
Primary Teacher,
D/o Shri Shiv Kumar Malik
R/o H.No.316/G-22, Sector-7,
Rohini.
3. Ragini Gupta, aged about 19 years
Primary Teacher,
D/o Sheri Rajesh Gupta
R/o J-1008, Jahagirpuri,
Delhi-11033. ....Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Harpreet Singh)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-92.
4. The Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines,
2 OA 2781/2018
Delhi-110054
5. Central Board of Secondary Education,
Through its Chairperson,
„Shiksha Kendra‟, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092. .....Respondents
ORDER
By Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A) M.A. No. 3098/2018 This MA has been filed by the applicants for joining together in a single application. For the reasons mentioned therein, MA is allowed. O.A. No. 2781/2018
This Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Hold and declare that the applicants are entitled for consideration for selection and appointment to the post of Primary Teacher, Post Code 1/18 for MCD direct the respondent No.3 to accept the form of the applicant for registration for admit cards issuance either way, i.e., hard copy or Online.
(ii) Issue Appropriate Order/Direction thereby directing the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Respondent No.1) to make a proposal to Central Government, Respondent No.2 herein thereby seeking relaxation in the CTET qualification for the post of Primary Teacher in favour of applicants and further issue appropriate order/direction thereby directing the respondent no.2 to consider and grant relaxation in CTET qualification for the above said post.
(iii) Direct the respondents to not to insist on CTET qualifications in respect of applicants for purpose of consideration of selection and appointment to the said post.
(iv) Direct the respondents to accept the candidatures of the applicant for the said post allowing them to qualify the CTET whenever conducted by the Government/CBSE.
(v) Further consider and appoint the applicants in accordance with their merit position.
(vi) Accord all consequential benefits.
(vii) Award costs of the proceedings and
(viii) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon‟ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case".3 OA 2781/2018
2. The facts, in brief, are that in this OA applicants are seeking direction to the respondent No.5-Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) that they are not conducting the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) in the later part of 2016, entire year of 2017 and half of 2018 which is one of the essential qualification for various teaching posts notified vide advertisement No.1/18. Their further dispute is to the impugned action on the part of the respondents in not relaxing the CTET qualification for appointment on the teaching posts as notified vide advertisement No.1/18 dated 20.12.2017 by the Director of Education, GNCTD for the post of applicants. They are aspirants to the post of Primary Teacher, Post Code 1/18, but are not able to apply online as they are not having CTET.
3. The applicants further submit that they are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No.1 to take up the matter with the Central Government for grant of relaxation in CTET qualification in terms of Section 23 (2) of the Rights of Children Free and Compulsory Education At, 2009 to the applicants for the post of Primary Teacher, post code 1/18, as advertised vide advertisement No.01/18. Since there has been no mechanism in place to conduct the CTET after September, 2016, the respondents ought to have considered and granted relaxation to the applicants to have qualified CTET on the closing date of applications viz. 30.07.2018 and the applicants are ready and willing to qualify in the next CTET, whenever the same is conducted.
4. The applicants have relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CWP No.189/2016 - Neelam Kataria Vs. GNCT of Delhi 4 OA 2781/2018 and Others decided on 11.01.2016 wherein the High Court has upheld the orders of this Tribunal granting relaxation to such candidates who could not even qualify CTET in the first attempt and in the meanwhile got selected to a teacher‟s post. They have further submitted that similarly placed persons who approached the Tribunal are being given relaxation of CTET but the same is being denied to them.
5. The applicants next pleaded that CTET is being conducted twice every year, i.e., once in February and second in September but their plea is that after September, 2016 no CTET has been conducted and as such they have been deprived of their right to appear in the CTET examination and acquire the said qualification. Hence, they have prayed that they be given two chances to appear in the CTET after they had submitted their application form for the posts in terms of advertisement No.01/18.
6. They further pleaded that large number of vacancies for the post of Special Education Teacher and other teacher in the Directorate of Education have been lying vacant since 2011 (i.e. when the said posts were advertised) till date but could not be filled due to non-availability of suitable candidates. They have thus prayed that the OA be allowed and they be permitted to appear in the CTET examination.
7. Heard Shri Harpreet Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the pleadings on record.
8. The short point involved in this case is that applicants who have not qualified CTET examination are seeking direction to be given to the respondents to hold the said examination so that they can apply for the posts of teacher. We may mention, that it is the prerogative of the 5 OA 2781/2018 Government/State Government when to hold a particular test but Courts cannot give any direction in this regard. No doubt, if they have applied for a particular post cost 1/18 for MCD and are not CTET qualified, how can their forms be accepted. By way of this OA, the applicants are seeking automatic exemption to hold CTET examination which is not within our domain and it is for the Government to see when to conduct a particular exam.
9. The details of the qualifications of the applicants are as under:-
Name of Qualifications
Applicants
1.Minakshi 25.05.2015 (10+2)
07.09.2017 (Diploma
in Elementary
Education)
2.Priya Malik 25.05.2015 (10 + 2)
07.09.2017 (Diploma
in Elementary
Education)
3.Ragini Gupta 21.05.2016 (10 + 2)
21.09.2017 (Diploma
in Elementary
Education)
10. Hence the averments, with regard to the fact that the requisite qualifications are not found to be correct. From the above, it is clear that the applicants only acquired the basic qualification for applying for CTET only in the year 2017. Hence, the respondents cannot be called into question for delaying of holding of CTET examination.
6 OA 2781/2018
11. The applicants have also submitted since CTET was not regularly held after 2010 hence directions be issued to hold the same test. In this regard, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ram Saran, AIR 1964 SC 1361, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1861, held that State Government alone is empowered to frame Rules regulating the condition of service of members of the police force. Thus the decision rendered in Ram Saran's case (supra) is fully applicable to the applicants case and they cannot be granted any interim relief. Further, the decision relied upon by the applicants who are not similarly situated as in the case of Neelam Kataria (supra), has no application as they were already Primary Teachers and only on that basis relaxation was given for qualifying the CTET examination.
12. In the circumstances giving a blanket permission to participate anybody in a selection without considering the individual facts of each case, would not be in accordance with law. Thus seen from any angle, the interim relief, as prayed for by the applicants, in this OA is not allowed.
13. Issue notice to the respondents to file their reply within 2 weeks and thereafter 2 weeks to the applicants to file rejoinder. List 7 OA 2781/2018 the matter before the Principal Registrar‟s court for completion of pleadings on 31.08.2018.
(S.N. TERDAL) (NITA CHOWDHURY) MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A) lg