Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Paramjit Kaur on 22 August, 2023

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Paramjit Kaur on 22 August, 2023

The Government of NCT and others have assailed the order of the High Court dated 01.05.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.4293/2016. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein assailing the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (Principal Bench) (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for the sake of convenience) in Original Application being O.A. No.2166/2013. By the impugned order, the Delhi High Court has directed the appellants herein to consider the candidature of the first respondent for appointment as Post Graduate teacher (Biology) (Female), Post Code No.040/10, by setting aside the order of the Tribunal, while at the same time holding that the respondent herein would not be entitled to arrears of pay and the appointment to the said post would take effect from the date, the first respondent is so appointed. The High Court directed that the said exercise must be completed within a period of two months from the date of its judgment.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Briefly stated the facts are that pursuant to an Advertisement RADHA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.02 12:27:42 IST No.02/2010 issued in July 2010 by the Delhi Subordinate Services Reason:

Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the “DSSSB” for the sake of brevity), the first respondent herein had applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Biology)(Female), Post Code No. 040/10. The essential educational qualifications stipulated to be considered for the aforesaid post were as under:

“1. Master’s Degree (or its equivalent Oriental Degree in the case of PGT Sanskrit/Hindi) in the subject concerned from any recognized University. 2.

Degree/Diploma in Training/Education “Qualifications mentioned at S.No.2 above relaxable in the case of candidates: (1) having obtained Ph. D Degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University/Institution; or (ii) having obtained First Division in Higher Secondary, Degree and Post Graduate Examination with the mandatory condition that the candidate will acquire the B.Ed./B.T. qualification within a period not exceeding three years from the date of his joining the service.

Desirable: 3 years, experience of teaching in a College/Higher Secondary School/High School in the subject concerned.” In other words, the essential educational qualifications were of a Masters Degree in the subject concerned from any recognised university or a Degree/Diploma in Training/Education. The prescription of the aforesaid educational qualifications was made having regard to the post to which the recruitment was to be made, namely, Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in a Senior Secondary School and to discharge duties in a Senior Secondary School of the appellants. The first respondent appeared for the objective type written examination on 08.01.2012 and being successful in the same, she appeared in the Descriptive (Main) Examination and being successful therein, her result was declared on 06.08.2012 having obtained 141 marks and securing third rank in the Merit List. By a 2 letter dated 14.12.2012, she was directed to submit her documents for verification. On verifying the documents, it was found that the first respondent did not have the requisite educational qualifications and therefore, her candidature was cancelled vide Office Order dated 24.09.2013.

Being aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred O.A. No.2166/2013 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 29.07.2015 dismissed the Original Application being O.A. No.2166/2013 filed by the first respondent.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, the first respondent filed W.P. (C) No.4293/2016 before the Delhi High Court. The contention raised before the High Court was that although the first respondent did not possess the qualification which was prescribed in the notification calling for candidates for recruitment, she nevertheless possesses a qualification in a specialized Branch and therefore, she had the eligibility to be appointed. The said contention was accepted by the High Court and therefore, the impugned order and direction was issued directing the appellants herein to consider the case of the first respondent for appointment.

The High Court placed reliance on the counter-affidavit submitted by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) wherein it was stated that an opinion was sought from the Professor and Head of Department, DESM (Department of Education in Science and Mathematics) as to whether M.Sc. (Biotechnology) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Botany/Zoology) and whether the first respondent herein was eligible to be appointed to the 3 post of PGT (Biology). The Professor and Head of Department, DESM, had opined that a candidate possessing a Post-Graduate qualification in Biotechnology and who has studied Botany and Zoology at the graduate level and Biology at the Higher Secondary Level may be considered for the said post.

The High Court, thus, was of the view that the first respondent herein possessed the necessary educational qualifications as required under the advertisement and recruitment rules for the post of PGT (Biology) and was eligible for appointment to the said post. The High Court answered the question of equivalence in favour of the first respondent herein and observed that equivalence is never examined in a vacuum but with reference to the Recruitment Rules and the work and job requirements of the post.

The High Court found merit in the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein and allowed the same and quashed and set aside the Order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal. The High Court directed the appellants to consider the candidature of the first respondent for appointment as a Post Graduate Teacher (Biology). The High Court, however, directed that the first respondent would not be entitled to the arrears of pay and that the appointment to the said post would take effect from the date the first respondent is so appointed. The appellants were directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of two months from the date of its order.

Being aggrieved, the appellant-State has preferred this appeal.

4 We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the first respondent-candidate and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

The only question which arises in this appeal is, whether, the first respondent herein possessed the requisite qualification to be appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher to teach the students in the Senior Secondary School of the appellants herein. We have extracted the essential educational qualifications to be possessed in order to be eligible for the said post hereinabove. A reading of the same would indicate that the candidates must possess a Masters Degree in the subject concerned from a well recognized University and secondly, a Degree/Diploma in Training/Education. Thus, there was a two-fold educational qualification prescribed in order to be eligible to be appointed to the said post of PGT teacher in Biology subject to teach the students in a Senior Secondary School.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that a Masters Degree in the subject concerned would mean that in the instant case, the subject to be taught i.e. Biology, in respect of which subject, the only suitable Masters Degree could have been in Botany or Zoology. The first respondent did not possess either of the said Post Graduate Degrees but had an educational qualification of B.Sc. in Botany and M.Sc. in Biotechnology. She submitted that what was required was a qualification of Masters Degree in either Botany or Zoology and that Masters in Biotechnology had not at all been prescribed as a Degree which could be considered for the purpose of appointment as a teacher to teach Biology. Therefore, the High Court was not right in directing 5 that the first respondent who possessed only a B.Sc. in Botany and M.Sc. in Biotechnology be considered for the said post.

Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent drew our attention to the fact that the Selection Board (DSSSB) itself had gone into this issue and a Committee was appointed in order to consider whether a person possessing Masters Degree in a specialized Branch namely Biotechnology, Biochemistry, Microbiology and Genetics, other than M.Sc. in Botany and Zoology could be considered. The said Committee was of the view that the same was not a suitable qualification, nevertheless, the High Court while considering the case of the first respondent herein took note of the NCERT’s Report and held that the qualification possessed by the first respondent herein, namely, B.Sc. (Botany) and M.Sc. (Biotechnology) was equivalent to the prescribed educational qualification and therefore, a direction was issued to consider the case of the first respondent herein. The first respondent thus, submitted that the said direction is just and proper and that there is no merit in this appeal.

By way of reply, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that once an educational qualifications are prescribed by the Recruitment Board, the same cannot be altered at the instance of either the candidate or the court. That courts may not sit in judgment over what has been prescribed by the Recruitment Authority. She submitted that this Court in a recent judgment case of Indresh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) 12 SCC 42 has categorically held that when eligibility conditions or criteria have been issued, the question of equivalence to the 6 said eligibility criteria cannot be taken note of when no such prescription is given in the notification itself calling for recruitment. It was submitted that having regard to the said aspect of the matter, the High Court was not right in taking into consideration the aspect of suitability of a candidate who did not have the requisite educational qualifications.

We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and given our anxious consideration to the same. On a reading of the educational qualifications prescribed in the notification issued in July 2010, we find that they clearly indicate that the candidate must possess a Masters Degree in the subject concerned from any recognized University. This means a Masters Degree in Botany or Zoology.

The High Court, in our view, was not right in referring to CBSE Bye-law 53(v) in Chapter IX which stated that Post Graduates M.Sc. in Life Science with Zoology and Botany at graduation level are eligible for PGT (Biology) and that M.Sc. (Biotechnology) is a discipline of Life Science/Biology.

The High Court was also not correct in referring to the Expert Committee’s opinion which had stated that candidates with M.Sc. Botany/Zoology would be “more suitable”. Further, the High Court was not right in referring to the counter affidavit of the NCERT which had opined that a candidate possessing Post-Graduate degree in Biotechnology and who had studied Botany and Zoology at graduate level and Biology at Higher Secondary level could be considered. Also, the opinion that Biotechnology is a specialized area in Biology was also noted by the High Court. On the basis of the 7 affidavit by the NCERT dated 15.12.2016, the High Court opined that the respondent herein possessed the necessary qualification as required under the advertisement and recruitment rules for the post of PGT (Biology) and would be eligible for appointment to the said post.

We find that the question of equivalence never arose in the case as the advertisement/notification calling for candidates for appointment never whispered about any equivalence. Therefore, the High Court was not right in proceeding to make an inquiry regarding equivalence with reference to the NCERT affidavit and CBSE Bye-law.

The prescription of eligibility criteria or an educational qualification for a particular post is the prerogative of the appointing authority which alone has the competence to prescribe the eligibility criteria or educational qualification for a particular post. The candidate who does not possess such an eligibility criteria cannot seek the assistance of the Court to enter into an inquiry as to whether the educational qualification that the said candidate possesses is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement/notification calling for appointment to a particular post. Such an approach would only dilute the criteria prescribed for a particular post by the appointing authority. If such a dilution occurs, then it would lead to arbitrariness inasmuch as the candidate who does not possess the prescribed educational qualification can seek consideration for appointment on the basis of equivalence being sought by an inquiry to be made at the instance of the Court, from other experts or quarters. Such an approach would only defeat the prescription of 8 qualification by the appointing authority and the object and purpose of such a prescription, having regard to the post to which the potential candidate is to be appointed. Therefore, the High Court was not right in proceeding with the matter in the manner in which it which it has in the instant case.

The approach of the High Court could be considered from another angle. If the petitioner’s qualification was considered to be equivalent to the prescription of the educational qualification in the advertisement/notification calling for teachers, then, the said equivalence ought to have been clearly stated in the said advertisement/notification. In that case, more meritorious candidates than the respondent herein may have applied on the basis of equivalence prescribed in the advertisement/notification calling for candidates to be appointed as PGT teachers (Biology). In the absence of such an equivalence being prescribed, merely because the respondent had approached the Court, a direction to consider her for the said post could not also have been issued on an assumption that her qualification being M.Sc. in Biotechnology was suitable for teaching Biology subject to senior secondary students of the State schools.

Therefore, in sum and substance, the approach of the High Court in the impugned judgment, by venturing beyond what was prescribed in the advertisement/notification calling for appointments, by making a reference to expert’s opinion sought during the pendency of the case and on that basis allowing the writ petition and directing the case of the respondent to be considered for appointment as a PGT (Biology) teacher, is not correct. 9 The High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, was not expected to go into the question of equivalence of qualifications. The question of equivalence of qualification for recruitment is a matter that should be left to the employer, recruitment agency and the experts and must not be attempted to be made at the instance of courts or for that matter after the recruitment process has commenced and in the midst of it or towards the fag end.

In Mohammad Shujat Ali vs. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76, this Court was of the view that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standard, and practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, should not lightly disturb the decision of the Government. It is only where the decision of the Government is shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated by mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong that the Court would reach out its lethal arm and strike down the decision of the Government.

In Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610, it was observed that equivalence is a technical academic matter and it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the 10 academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published.

In Prakash Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC 484, a question of equivalence of two qualifications which may be treated as equivalent came up before this Court. This Court opined that in the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification must be recognized as such in existing recruitment rules or government order existing on or before the initiation of the recruitment process and not after it has commenced or in the midst of it. It was further held that the Courts cannot not go into the question of whether a degree is equivalent or superior to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement.

In Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404, a bench comprising Justice U. U. Lalit and Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, (as the learned Chief Justice then were), held that 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, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the 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.

In this case the subject concerned is Biology and the 11 candidate must therefore possess M. Sc. either in Botany or Zoology as that is the qualification which has been prescribed to teach the subject Biology to the students in Senior Secondary School. The second qualification is to have a Degree and/or Diploma in Training/Education. The reason why the aforesaid qualifications have been prescribed is that Botany and Zoology are pure sciences which are most appropriate and relevant to teach the students in the Senior Secondary School as Biology, whereas, the Degree possessed by the first respondent herein is B.Sc. in Botany and M.Sc. in Biotechnology. It is necessary to mention that a Degree in Biotechnology, Biochemistry, Microbiology or Genetics may be a Masters Degree but they are not Degrees in pure sciences, rather, they come in the realm of applied sciences and in this case what was necessary was to have a Masters Degree in a pure science subject so as to teach Biology to senior secondary students.

In that view of the matter, we find that the High Court was not right in directing the appellants herein to consider the case of the first respondent to be appointed as a teacher in the appellants’ school. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside.

The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………………,J [B.V. NAGARATHNA] ……………………………………………,J [UJJAL BHUYAN] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 22, 2023 12 ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1112/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-05-2017 in WPC No. 4293/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PARAMJIT KAUR & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 22-08-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. V.Mohna, Sr.Adv.

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.

Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.

Mr. S.K.Singhania, Adv. Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Sneha Botwe, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Deepak Sain, Adv.

Ms. Rachna Ranjan, Adv.

Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv.

Mr. Aakarsh, Adv.

Ms. Shivangi, Adv.

Ms. Sarita Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar, AOR Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.

Mrs. Kumari Supriya, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Ishank Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Raghavendra Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Purnima Jain, Adv.

Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, Adv.

Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. K. P. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv.

Ms. Pratishtha Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv.

Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Aryaman Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RADHA SHARMA)                                  (MALEKAR NAGARAJ)
COURT MASTER (SH)                               COURT MASTER (NSH)
                (Signed order is placed on the file)




                                14

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders