Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajesh Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 9 July, 2021
1
OA No.2652/2017
Item No. 35
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2652/2017
M.A. No. 3560/2019
M.A. No. 3561/2019
This the 9th day of July, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
1. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Rampal Singh
R/o D -234, St. N. - 8, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi - 110094
Aged about 33 years
2. Gaurav
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o 387, S4 Niti Khand -1, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Aged about 33 years
3. Preeti Dalal
W/o Sh. Satpal Singh
R/o H No. - 261, VPO Kakrola,
Dwarka, Sec- 16, New Delhi - 110078
Aged about 31 years
4. Puneet Rana
S/o Sh. Naresh Rana
R/o H No. 177, V.P.O. Qutab Garh,
Delhi - 110039
Aged about 35 years
5. Kunwar Anjani Tyagi
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Tyagi
R/o S-3, Plot No. 94, Aarohi Plaza,
Sec - 5, Rajender Nagar, Ghaziabad
Aged about 30 years
2
OA 2652/2017
Item No. 3
6. Kulveer Singh
S/o Sh. Dharmbir Singh,
R/o H No. - 699, RLY Colony, Gali No. 26
Mandawali, Delhi - 110092
Aged about 31 years
7. Akash Akhil
S/o Sh. Subhash Akhil
R/o B-7/40, Ground Floor, Sec-15,
Rohini, Delhi - 110089
Aged about 32 years
8. Anshu Jain
S/o Sh. Bimla Jian
R/o 170/23, Hanuman Gali,
Jind, Haryana - 126102
Aged about 30 years
9. Rajni Shah
D/o Sh. Kharak Singh Shah
R/o H. No. - 7, 1st Floor, Shyam Nagar,
Govind Puri, Okhla Phase - III, New Delhi 110020
Aged about 30 years
10. Asif
S/o Sh. Sayeed Ahmed
R/o New Basti, Mughal Pura Baghpat,
Distt. Baghpat - 250609 (UP)
Aged about 29 years
11. Amit Malik
S/o Sh. Veer Pal Singh
R/o V-1498, Street No.-3, Vijay Park,
Delhi-110053
Aged about 33 years
12. Aryender Kumar
S/o Sh. Surender Pal Singh
R/o D/1003, Gali No.-10, Ashok Nagar,
Wazirabad Road, Delhi- 110093
Aged about 31 years
3
OA 2652/2017
Item No. 3
13. Reetika Chawla
D/o Sh. P.S. Chawla
R/o 170 B, Red MIG. Flats, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027
Aged about 3l years
14. Reena Kumari
D/o Sh. Krishan
R/o H. No. 88 L 1, 1st Floor,
New Colony, Gurugram
Aged about 30 years
15. Madhu Sirohi
D/o Sh. Chandra Pal Sirohi
R/o 408/5A-13, Gali No.4,
Upper Anand Parbhat, New Delhi
Aged about 31 years
16. Shobhit Kumar
S/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal
R/o H. No. 210, C/o Dinesh Kumar Agrawal,
Near Sale Tax Office, Kayastwada,
Sikandrabad, Dist. Bulandshahar, UP
Aged about 30 years
17. Rameshwar Dutta Pandey
S/o Sh. Prem Prakash
R/o H. NO. 791/21, Gali No. 5R,
Haffed Road, Prem Nagar,
Rohtak, Haryana-124001
Aged about 30 Years
18. Prayas Kaushik
S/o Sh. Pramod Sharma
R/o Pratima Sadan, Opposite to IMR College,
Village Duhai, Ghaziabad
Aged about 29 Years
19. Jhankar Tyagi
W/o Sh. Siddharth Tyagi
R/o Flat No. 8, Pocket-E, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-2, Delhi-110091
Aged about 28 Years
4
OA 2652/2017
Item No. 3
20. Anju Dhiraan
W/o Sh. Dinaker Chahal
R/o 235-B, Street No.19, Road No.6,
Shyam Vihar, Phase-1, Najafgarh, Delhi
Aged about 32 Years
21. xxx xxx xxx xxx
22. Vikas Goyal
S/o Sh. Satpal Goyal
R/o House No. 961-B, Sector-13
Urban Estate, Distt-Kurukshetra, Haryana
Aged about 32 Years
23. Vinay Kumari
W/o Sh. Vipin Dahiya
R/o House No.3267, Sector-15,
Sonipat, Haryana- 131001
Aged about 28 years
(Candidates to the post of TGT (Computer Science)
.. Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra for applicants and
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal for Applicant No.19)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Cabinet 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
5
OA 2652/2017
Item No. 3
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director
(GNCT of Delhi)
Old Secretariat, Delhi 110054
4. Dayanand
DOB: 10/02/1989
S/o Mr. Balmukund Prasad
R/o Dayanand Balmukund Niwas
House No.67, Block B, Street No. 7,
Khajuri Khas, Delhi- 110090
Category UR
5. Varun Kumar Dinkar
DOB: 10/02/1990
S/o Shyam Lal
R/o B-330, old B 59, Near Church,
New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi-110096
Category SC
6. Shivani
DOB: 05/03/1992
D/o Shri Satyavir Singh
R/o-Vill+Post-Basoli,
Distt-Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250623
Category UR
7. Mukesh Kumar
DOB: 21/04/199O
S/o Paramjeet Singh
R/o A-69, Aggarwal Colony,
Rajdhani Park, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041
Category- UR
8. Meenakshi Kaushik
DOB: 17/07/1985
D/o Mr.S L Kaushik
R/o G-3/84, Sector 15, Rohini,
Delhi-110089
Category- UR
6
OA 2652/2017
Item No. 3
9. Kirti Mohan Gaur
DOB: 06/06/1991
S/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gaur
R/o B-72, Street No.3, East Vinod Nagar,
New Delhi-110091
Category- UR
10. Vaibhav Panwar
DOB: 24/09/1991
S/o Dr. Surender Singh
R/o R-13, SF, Model Town-III,
Delhi-110009
Category- UR
11. Anurekh Kumar
DOB: 02/03/1989
S/o Krishan Pal
R/o-1 /4136 Ram Nagar Ext. Loni Road,
Shahdara Delhi, Delhi- 110032
Category- SC
12. Divya Jain
DOB: 05/11/1991
D/o- Adesh Jain
R/o-B 1078, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052
Category- UR
13. Poonam
DOB: 26/05/1992
House No. 388, Arya Nagar, Gali No. 4,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana - 124507
General Category
14. Chitra Sharma
DOB: 12/05/1991
D/o Mr. Sanjay Sharma
H- 54, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road,
Delhi - 110094
Category - UR
15. Kapil Dala
DOB: 05/08/1992
7
OA 2652/2017
Item No. 3
S/o Mr. Balbir Singh
VPO Bhera Teh. Tosham Distt. Bhiwani
Haryana - 127043
16. Amit Vishwas Bhushan
DOB: 17/10/1989
S/o Kumar Bharat Bhushan
Bhagat Colony, Near SBI Kajichak Bounsi Road,
Mirjanhat Dist. Bhagalpur,
Delhi - 812005
17. Manisha
DOB: 11/04/1988
W/o Siddharth Yadav
H. No. 1200, Huda Market Lane,
Sector - 21 Gurugram - 122016
18. Sunil
DOB: 23/06/1988
S/o Sh. Krishan
VPO - Mirzapur Kheri, Teh-Gohana,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana - 131301
19. Sonam Rani
DOB: 03/10/1989
D/o Sh. Sarnam Singh
19/140, Kiyan Puri,
Delhi - 110091
20. Astha Bhardwaj
DOB: 25/07/1989
D/o Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj
C 64/B Street No. 9, Jyoti Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032
21. Aditi Sharma
DOB: 02/02/1988
D/o Sh. L. K. Sharma
R 33, Model Town III, Delhi - 110009
22. Kaushal Kishore
DOB: 31/01/1987
D/o Kameshwar Singh
8
OA 2652/2017
Item No. 3
VPO:Rajpur, District: Rohtas,
Bihar - 802219
.. Respondents
(By Advocates : Shri Amit Anand and Ms. Esha Mazumdar for
official respondents and Ms. Sangita Rai for
private respondents )
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:
A vacancy notice was issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short, the Board) in January, 2014 inviting applications for various posts including that of Trained Graduate Teacher (Computer Science) with post code No. 192/14. The essential qualifications, stipulated for the post are; Bachelors Degree in Computer Science (BCA) from a recognised University, or Graduation in Computer Science from a recognised University; or B.E./B.Tech. (Computer Science/Information Technology) from a recognised University. The applicants herein hold the Post- Graduation Degree in MCA. They took part in the competitive examination, held for this purpose. However, at the stage of selection, they were not considered as eligible, on the ground that they did not hold the BCA Degree or the other prescribed qualifications. Therefore, they filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to declare them as qualified, for the 9 OA 2652/2017 Item No. 3 post of TGT (Computer Science) and to direct the respondents to select and appoint them as TGT (Computer Science).
2. The applicants contend that in the MCA, the study is about the Computer Science education at a higher level, and it cannot be said that they do not hold the requisite qualification. They submit that when a degree at Graduation level, namely BCA, is treated as essential qualification, there is absolutely no reason to deny such a facility for the MCA. Various other contentions were also urged.
3. The official respondents, on the one hand, and the private respondents, on the other hand, filed separate counter affidavits, opposing the O.A. According to them, once the recruitment rules stipulate a particular set of qualifications for the post, the question of inserting another qualification does not arise. It is also pleaded that the MCA is not necessarily the Post Graduation course for BCA and, as a matter of fact, the applicant did not study BCA at all.
4. On earlier occasion, the OAs were also allowed, through order dated 12.10.2018. Aggrieved by that, the private respondents filed W.P. (C) No. 13885/2018 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. Through its order dated 21.12.2018, the Hon‟ble High Court took the view that the exercise 10 OA 2652/2017 Item No. 3 undertaken by the Tribunal for comparing the MCA with BCA is not adequate and some more exercise ought to have been undertaken. Accordingly, the matter was remitted.
5. Today, we heard Mr. Ajesh Luthra and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Anand, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the official respondents and Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for the private respondents.
6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the applicants hold the qualification prescribed for the post of TGT (Computer Science). In the advertisement, the qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules are reproduced. They read as under:-
"Essential Qualification- 1. Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognised University OR Graduation in Computer Science from a recognised University (Provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject) OR B.E./B.Tech. (Computer Science/ Information Technology) from a recognised University OR Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt. of India."
From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the qualifications are prescribed with adequate description. Such qualifications are BCA, Graduation in Computer Science from 11 OA 2652/2017 Item No. 3 recognised University, wherein the Computer Science subject is studied in all the years as main subject, or B.E./B.Tech. in Computer Science/Information Technology from a recognised University and graduation in any subject with „A‟ level course from DOEACC conducted by the Ministry of Information and Communication and Technology, Government of India. Admittedly, the applicants do not possess any of these qualifications. They hold the qualification of MCA.
7. In the earlier order passed by this Tribunal, an observation was made to the effect that MCA is a Post Graduation Degree for those who studied BCA. However, all the learned counsel are in agreement that MCA is not essentially a Post Graduation Degree for BCA and any Graduate in Science and allied subjects can get admission in MCA.
8. It is the prerogative of the user department to stipulate the qualifications for the posts, in their establishment. Howsoever equivalent or similar, the other qualifications may appear, the concerned authority has its own purpose or objective in prescribing qualifications of a particular description, for the concerned post. Once the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are treated as essential, there is no way to ignore them. It is a different matter that a candidate may 12 OA 2652/2017 Item No. 3 possess higher qualification, even by possessing the prescribed qualification. Once the selection is on the basis of the performance in the written test, the level of education or the marks secured in the University examination, hardly matter. A candidate would acquire eligibility only on possessing a degree or qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules.
9. A small doubt that existed in this behalf, stood resolved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, CA No. 11853/2018. The relevant paragraphs in this behalf, read as under:-
"22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine."
10. It was categorically held by their Lordships that it is the prerogative of the concerned department to prescribe the 13 OA 2652/2017 Item No. 3 qualifications and the Courts cannot enter the arena of equivalence. There may be instances of relaxation of qualifications where the adequate number of qualified candidates are not available or where the candidates possess extraordinary merit, but do not hold the prescribed qualification. Those are exceptional situations. Once the written test is held, and quite large number of candidates appeared for the post of TGT, there does not exist an occasion at all, for undertaking or embarking upon the evaluation of qualifications.
11. Reliance is placed upon a recent judgment in Puneet Sharma & Ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 1323-24 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021. That was a case in which the recruiting agency prescribed "Minimum Qualification" and an effort was made to discard the candidates, who possessed the qualifications, more than the minimum. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that simply because a candidate holds a superior qualification, he cannot be discarded from consideration. What is prescribed in the instant case is "essential qualification" and not the "minimum qualification".
12. We do not find any merit in the OA. The same is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay granted by the 14 OA 2652/2017 Item No. 3 Tribunal is vacated and it shall be open to the respondents to appoint the candidates as per the merit list at the earliest, so that the teaching work does not suffer.
Pending MAs also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member (A) Chairman
/jyoti/ankit/dd