Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pooja Devi vs Govt. Of Nctd on 19 April, 2023
1
O.A. No. 983/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 983/2020
Order reserved on: 23.03.2023
Order pronounced on: 19.04.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Pooja Devi
W/o Snadeep Sharma
Aged about 33 years,
R/o VPO-Gogripur
Tehsil and District-Karnal
Haryana-132037
Group- 'B'
Sub: Appointment
...Applicant
[By Advocate(s): Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi with
Mr. Varun Chadivk and Ms. Riya Seth]
Versus
1. Govt. of N.C. T.D
Through the Principal Secretary, Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg
Delhi -54
2. The Director of Education,
Government of N.C.T.D
Old Secretariat, Delhi -54
...Respondents
[By Advocate(s): Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma]
2
O.A. No. 983/2020
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The applicant was a candidate for appointment to the post of TGT (Punjabi)-Female in the schools of Govt of NCT, Delhi. However, her candidature has not been accepted adducing the ground that she does not possess the essential educational qualifications as mentioned in the vacancy notification which has further been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, she has preferred the present Original Application seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. declare that applicant is eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of TGT, Punjabi and accordingly, direct the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the applicant for appointment to the post of TGT, Punjabit against Post-Code 143/17 qua Advt. No.04/17 under the Directorate of Education Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi along with all consequential benefits;
AND/OR ii. pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit & proper."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant explaining the background of the case submits that the applicant possesses a post graduate degree in Punjabi and prior to that she had Punjabi as one of the elective subjects in graduation. He submits that before pursuing the post graduation the applicant has obtained a degree of Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) in which too Punjabi was one of her subjects. He further submits that all through her schooling the applicant had studied Punjabi as one 3 O.A. No. 983/2020 of the subjects. He argues that the applicant possesses qualification higher than the minimum educational qualification required in the Recruitment Rules and it is an accepted proposition of law that a higher qualifications subsumes a lower qualification, once the applicant possess a post graduate degree, it is presumed that the qualification of the graduation as set forth in recruitment rules is also possessed by the applicant. Drawing attention to the reasons adduced by the respondents in the counter reply and in the order passed to this effect dated 19.08.2020 which is placed at page 7 of the counter affidavit. The respondents have quoted from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2514/2012 as the ground for withdrawing the candidature of the applicant. He submits that he has annexed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition alongwith the Original Application and a bare reading of the same would indicate that in fact the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court supports the case of the applicant. He quotes from paragraphs 47-50 of the said judgment to substantiate this contention. For the sake of clarity, the said paragraphs are being reproduced below:-
"47. The controversy pertaining to Neelam Rana is not in the context of what would be an elective subject studied during Graduation. Admittedly Neelam Rana seeks appointment as T.G.T. English, a subject which she never studied in her Graduation course which we find was B.Sc. (Botany) but she fights the battle on the strength of having obtained a Post Graduate Degree in English i.e. M.A.(English).4 O.A. No. 983/2020
48. This issue is no longer res integra and stands decided by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2002 (61) DRJ 58 Manju Pal v Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In said case, the appellant who had studied Hindi at Graduate level applied for being appointed to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in the MCD. Despite being successful in the selection process conducted for said purpose, the appellant was not appointed to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher on the ground that she had not studied Hindi at the Higher Secondary Level and is thus not eligible for being appointed to said post. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant had filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of this Court which got dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and held that the appellant is eligible for being appointed to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in MCD as she possessed a higher qualification than the qualification required for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. It would be relevant to note following portion of the said judgment:-
"8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant was wrongly rejected on the spurious ground of her nt having a qualification prescribed by the advertisement read with the corrigendum. Learned counsel appearing for the Board and the MCD submit that as per the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and the corrigendum for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher, the requirement of Hindi at the Secondary level or Senior Secondary level is the essential qualification which a candidate must possess. According to them, in case a candidate having a Bachelor of Arts degree with Hindi, he/she would not be eligible for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. We fail to see the logic and the rationale of the argument of the learned counsel for the MCD and the Board. Undoubtedly, Bachelor of Arts degree with Hindi, is a higher qualification than the higher secondary with Hindi.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the MCD it has not been stated as to how the study of Hindi as a language at higher secondary or intermediate level by the candidates is more relevant than the study of Hindi as a language in BA pass course for the job requirement. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the Board and the MCD which could justify the stand of the respondents that the study of Hindi as a language at higher secondary level by acandidate has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which object by the study of Hindi at B.A. level by a candidate c annot be achieved. No study or evaluation or analysis has been placed before us to show that the candidates having Hindi as a subject at the secondary level are better qualified and equipped to teach primary students than the candidates having Hindi at the graduate level. In case the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the MCD and the Board is taken to its logical conclusion it will lead to absurd results. There may be a case where a person did not take up Hindi as a language at higher 5 O.A. No. 983/2020 secondary level and took it up at higher levels, namely, B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. Surely, it can not be said that the person who had taken Hindi as a subject at the Graduate level, Masters level or Doctorate level is less qualified for the job than the person who had taken up Hindi as a subject at the higher secondary level. The counter affidavit of the MCD is not at all helpful for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is any valid justification for the stand of the Board and the M.C.D. in considering higher secondary with Hindi as an essential requirement for the post of Primary Assistant Teachers. The invidious distinction made by the Board and the MCD for ignoring candidates with higher qualification is unwarranted and without any valid basis.
10. It is significant to note that nothing is stated in the counter affidavit as to how Hindi at the Higher Secondary level is helpful for teaching primary level students. What is so special about Hindi at the secondary level, which attribute Hindi at higher level is lacking has not been explained in the counter affidavit or the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. Hindi as a language has not been mentioned in the advertisement as a special qualification for imparting education to the students at the primary level. It cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that a candidate possessing higher qualification like B.A. with Hindi or M.A. with Hindi will be less efficient in teaching primary classes than a person possessing lesser qualification such as higher secondary with Hindi.
11. We are supported in our view by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narayan Yadav Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Ors., 1988 (3) SLR Allahabad 42, in which it was held as follows:-
As regards the eligibility of respondent No. 3 for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, the learned counsel for the respondents drew out attention to N.B. (Note)(2) below the rule prescribing minimum qualifications for 'Hindi Teachers for Intermediate' contained in Appendix A which provides as follows: "The Hindi Teachers may not be required to have a Degree in Sanskrit in those institutions where qualified Sanskrit teacher is available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Court".
The above note clarifies the intention why B.A. with Sanskrit was kept as an essential qualification for a Hindi Teacher for Intermediate Classes. The person should be such who can also teach Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Course. The qualification prescribed for Sanskrit Teacher for Intermediate' is 'M.A. with Sanskrit preferably trained'. As respondent no. 3 is M.A. in Sanskrit, he is fully qualified to teach Sanskrit also. Consequently, respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be disqualified for being appointed teacher in Hindi simply because he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', especially when he is M.A. in Sanskrit and is qualified to teach Sanskrit portion of Hindi Court, so that requirement of 'B.A. with Sanskrit' is not applicable in his case. Moreover, respondent no. 3 may not be having Sanskrit as a subject for his Bachelors' degree. He is, however, having Master's Degree in Sanskrit, which is 6 O.A. No. 983/2020 certainly a higher qualification than B.A. with Sanskrit. Consequently, the claim of respondent no. 3 could not be rejected merely on the ground that he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', when he is admittedly M.A. Sanskrit'."(Emphasis Supplied)
49. A similar view was taken by a Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported as 186 (2012) DLT 132 Kalpana Pandey v Director of Education & Ors. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of Court in LPA No.640/2010 'Director of Education v Kalpana Pandey' decided on September 18, 2012.
50. In view of aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, we hold that respondent Neelam Rana is eligible for being appointed to the post of T.G.T. (English), particularly when the Directorate of Education has placed no material before us to show that the person who has studied English at graduate level would be better equipped to teach English to students vis-à-vis a person who has obtained a Post Graduate degree in English language."
3. He also refers to a judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2950 /2016, which has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court quoted in the preceding paragraph.
He reiterates the arguments he had put forth on the last date of hearing that the relief claimed by the applicant gets fully established against the light of these judgments and suprisingly it is the same judgment of the Hon'ble High Court which the respondents are quoting for denial of the claim of the applicant.
He submits that this may be on account of erroneous understanding in the quotation of the said judgment.
4. Per contra, the respondents have placed reliance on averments made in their counter affidavit and inter-alia contended that this Tribunal in OA No. 211/2020, has held as under:-
7 O.A. No. 983/2020"When the post itself is of Domestic Science Teacher, it is but natural that the study must be on regular basis in graduation of three years in that very subject. The study of that subject through any other mode or on compartmental basis, without regular studies in a bachelors course for Arts, can in no way be treated as equivalent.
6. We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly, dismissed."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 2514/2012 has held as under:-
"46. The corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 prescribes that 'the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different universities". We emphasize the word 'studied' occurring in the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010. Respondent Snehlata who has not studied concerned subject i.e. Sanskrit subject in the graduation course undertaken by her is clearly not eligible for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). After clearing the Graduation course and obtaining a degree what she has done is to have studied some kind of a course designed by the University and has learnt Sanskrit. The degree which she has in Graduation does not pertain to the subject Sanskrit.
xxxxxxx
53. W.P.(C) No.2514/2012 is allowed and impugned decision dated December 01, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in favour of Snehlata is set aside and the Original Application filed by her is dismissed."
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No.11853- 54/2018 has held 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 as rules, 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 qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The states 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 poser of 8 O.A. No. 983/2020 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..."
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the answering respondent has merely issued deficiency memo dated 31.10.2019, against which the applicant had filed representation dated 04.11.2019. However without awaiting outcome of the decision of the Department nor impugning the said deficiency memo in the prayer clause, this OA has been filed. The respondents have since passed cancellation order dated 19.08.2020, which has not been impugned in the present OA, hence the present OA needs to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. ANALYSIS 6.1 We must, for sake of addressing and understanding the issue, quote the deficiency memo No. DE-3(2)/DRC(E-
III)/TGT(PUNJABI)/2019/2873 dated 31.10.2019 issued by the respondent is reproduced below.
"DEFICIENCY MEMO During the course of document verification on 31/10/2019 in r/o Mr./Ms. POOJA DEVI (ROLL NO. 120214300094) for the post of TGT PUNJABI (POST CODE- 143/17) the following deficiency(s) was being found:
(i) Punjabi subject is not studied as per RR in graduation
(ii) Provide the backside photocopy of graduation marksheet.
You are thereafter directed to submit the requisite documents/clarification as mentioned above to DR Cell, Establishment-III Branch of Directorate of Education, Delhi within 15 days from the date of issue of this letter."
9 O.A. No. 983/2020Thereafter, the respondents have reiterated there stand in the subsequent office order dated 19.8.2020, the relevant para of the same reproduced below:-
"Whereas, the order of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 2514/2012, GNCT of Delhi Vs Snehlata, has given decision and rejected the contentions of the Respondent, & the likewise cases has already been rejected by the DSSSB also"
6.2 It is astonishing to observe that above quoted para in Office Order dated 19.8.2020 is quite contrary to what has been said in the Writ Petition No.2514/2012 GNCT vs. Snehlata in facts of the said case which cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. It is the facts of Sachin Gupta (W.P.(C) No.1520/2012), Vikram Singh (W.P.(C) No.4483/2012), Nainika (W.P.(C)4301/2012) and Neelam Rana (W.P.(C) No. 575/2013) (as narrated in para 47 to 53) ought to have been applied. The relevant paragraphs of the same reads as under :-
"15. In the year 2003 the respondent of W.P. (C) No.2514/2012; namely, Snehlata obtained a B.A. degree from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and had not studied Sanskrit as a subject in any of the three years of the graduation course. After completing the graduation course in the year 2003, she cleared three papers in Sanskrit language in an examination conducted by Maharishi Dayanand University and obtained a degree B.A.(Additional) pertaining to Sanskrit subject in the year 2004 i.e. after studying Sanskrit for only one year. In respect of which B.A.(Additional) Degree the University armed her with a document as under:-
"Point No.1.1. Clause 19 of the ordinance of B.A./B.SC./B.COM provides as under:
i) A candidate who has passed B.A. three years course of this university may appear in additional subject (s) prescribed for the course in the subsequent examination except the subject(s) with which he/she has already passed the course.10 O.A. No. 983/2020
Point 2 Sanskrit (Elective) subject for regular as well as distance mode and additional subject (Sanskrit) in B.A. is one and same and equal in all subject." (Emphasis Supplied)
16. In the National Capital Territory of Delhi appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers under the Government of NCT of Delhi as also the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are effected through a statutory board called the Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (DSSSB), which undertakes the selection process and forwards the list of successful candidates to the Education Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi where scrutiny of the certificates pertaining to the essential educational qualifications as also character is conducted before letters offering appointment are issued.
17. In the years 2010 and 2011, DSSSB issued advertisements inviting applications from eligible candidates to be appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers in various disciplines such as T.G.T. (English), T.G.T. (Hindi), T.G.T. (Sanskrit) and T.G.T. (Social Science).
18. In response to the advertisement, respondents Nainika and Neelam Rana in W.P.(C) Nos.4301/2012 and 575/2013 respectively, applied for the post of T.G.T. (English); respondent Sachin Gupta in W.P.(C) No.1520/2012 applied for the post of T.G.T. (Social Science); respondent Vikram Singh in W.P. (C) No.4483/2012 applied for the post of T.G.T. (Hindi) and respondent Snehlata in W.P. (C) No.2514/2012 applied for the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). They successfully cleared the written examination conducted by DSSSB and were declared successful. However, save and except respondent Vikram Singh in W.P.(C) 4483/2012, the Directorate of Education did not issue appointment letters to the respondents in the other writ petitions. Respondent Vikram Singh was issued an appointment letter by the Directorate of Education but thereafter he did not receive any communication requiring him to join for duty. On account of aforesaid facts, the respondents of all the writ petitions made enquiries at the Directorate and learnt that they are not being appointed/required to join for duty on account of the reason the Graduation degree obtained by them, as per the Directorate of Education, did not satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Recruitment Rules.
19. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Directorate of Education in appointing/requiring them to join for duty to the posts of T.G.T., the respondents of all the writ petitions filed separate applications under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi highlighting therein that the Graduation degrees obtained by them satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and thus sought a direction to be issued against the Government of NCT of Delhi to appoint them as a T.G.T. in the respective discipline with all consequential benefits.
20. In the replies filed it was pleaded by the Directorate of Education that the respondents Nainika, Sachin Gupta and 11 O.A. No. 983/2020 Vikram Singh could not be appointed to the post of T.G.T. for the reason the Graduation degrees obtained by them did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed in the Recruitment Rules read with the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010: that the candidate should have studied the concerned subject i.e. the subject for which the candidate applies in all parts/years of graduation since neither Nainika nor Sachin Gupta nor Vikram Singh had studied English, a subject pertaining to Social Science and Hindi respectively in all three years of the Graduation course undertaken by them. Pertaining to Sachin Gupta, we need to highlight that he had applied for the post of T.G.T. Social Science and the Recruitment Rule required a study of at least any two of the seven subjects listed in the applicable Recruitment Rule and he was a student of B.Com (Hons.) and was claiming on the strength of having studied Economics and Commerce. As regards Snehlata and Neelam Rana the Directorate of Education took the stand that neither had studied Sanskrit or English in their Graduation course.
21. The Tribunal has allowed the applications filed by the respondents of all the writ petitions.
xxxxx
23. Vide judgment dated December 01, 2011 the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by respondent Snehlata on the ground that the stand taken by the Directorate of Education that Snehlata had not studied Sanskrit as an 'elective' subject in all parts/years of her graduation course cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Snehlata has cleared all three papers relating to 'Sanskrit' conducted by the University after she had completed the three years Graduation course with Hindi as the subject.
xxxxxx
26. From the afore-noted conspectus of facts, it is clear that the controversy which has arisen in the present case(s) relates to the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 as per which the elective subject must have been studied by the candidate in all years of Graduation and the paper should be of at least 100 marks in each year.
27. The questions which arise and need to be answered in the present petition(s) are: (i) Whether the corrigendum was incorporated formally by amendment of the Recruitment Rules? If yes, what is the effect thereof?
(ii) If the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 remains as an executive instruction, what is the effect thereof? and (iii) What is the exact meaning of the corrigendum?
28. On a bare reading of the afore-noted extract(s) of the Recruitment Rules existing in the year 2010 and 2011 i.e. when the advertisement(s) for appointment to the post of T.G.T. in various subjects were issued in the instant case(s), it is clear that the minimum essential educational qualification stipulated for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (MIL)/T.G.T. in is B.A.(Hons.) degree in concerned subject i.e. the subject for 12 O.A. No. 983/2020 which the candidate applies or a B.A. degree with the concerned subject included as an elective subject in the course from a recognized university/Bachelor's degree (Hons./Pass) in two school subjects of which at least English, Mathematics, Natural/Physical Science, Social Science should have been at elective level from a recognized University.
29. The expression 'elective subject' was not defined in the Recruitment Rules.
30. On March 13, 2010 a corrigendum was issued by the Government defining the expression 'elective subject' occurring in the Recruitment Rules, which corrigendum was superseded by another corrigendum issued on March 30, 2010. As per corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 the expression 'elective subject' occurring in the Recruitment Rules means that 'The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different universities'.
xxxxxx
45. Respondent Snehlata had applied for being appointed to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). It is an admitted fact that she has not studied Sanskrit subject in any year of the Graduation course undertaken by her, but has subsequently appeared in an examination conducted by the University and cleared three papers pertaining to Sanskrit subject after studying the same in one year.
46. The corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 prescribes that 'the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different universities". We emphasize the word 'studied' occurring in the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010. Respondent Snehlata who has not studied concerned subject i.e. Sanskrit subject in the graduation course undertaken by her is clearly not eligible for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). After clearing the Graduation course and obtaining a degree what she has done is to have studied some kind of a course designed by the University and has learnt Sanskrit. The degree which she has in Graduation does not pertain to the subject Sanskrit.
xxxxxxx
53. W.P.(C) No.2514/2012 is allowed and impugned decision dated December 01, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in favour of Snehlata is set aside and the Original Application filed by her is dismissed.
54. Before concluding we pen a thought for the benefit of the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. With the march of times the imparting of education at the Graduate level is changing all over the world. It has been recognized that it would be useless to start teaching a particular subject without a basic study of some other subject; and we have 13 O.A. No. 983/2020 already given the example above pertaining to Political Science. The hitherto fore practice of teaching a subject each year with a paper of 100 marks in each year is giving way to the subject being taught in the second and the third of the Graduation course but retaining the three papers each having 100 marks. The march of times has led the University of Delhi to pioneer a Bachelorette degree i.e. a four years course to obtain the first degree after senior secondary. The Directorate of Education should keep in mind that it has to march in tune with the rest in the onward march in time and thus keeping in view that it is the substance which is recognized by law and not the form, the Directorate of Education should formally suitably amend their Recruitment Rules by specifying the eligibility norms in relation to the substance and not the form. Otherwise, as we can see the future cord of time: Students from University of Delhi would be in perpetual litigation with the Directorate of Education as and when they seek employment as Teachers in Delhi."
6.3 The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahoor case was based on the facts of the said case. It is important to note the present post in question is TGT (Punjabi) and not to be equated with a nursery teacher/Junior Teacher.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.
1318-1322 OF 2021 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10533- 10537 OF 2020) decided on 7.4.2021 titled, Puneet Sharma & Ors. etc versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.
& Anr. etc. has held that :-
"37. The considerations which weighed with this court in the previous decisions i.e. P.M. Latha, Yogesh Kumar, Anita (Supra) were quite different from the facts of this case. This court's conclusions that the prescription of a specific qualification, excluding what is generally regarded as a higher qualification can apply to certain categories of posts. Thus, in Latha and Yogesh Kumar as well as Anita (supra) those possessing degrees or post-graduation or B.Ed. degrees, were not considered eligible for the post of primary or junior teacher. In a similar manner, for "Technician-III" or lower post, the equivalent qualification for the post of Junior Engineer i.e. diploma holders were deemed to have been excluded, in Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra). This court is cognizant of the fact that in Anita as well as Zahoor (supra) the stipulation in Jyoti (supra) which enabled consideration of 14 O.A. No. 983/2020 candidates with higher qualifications was deemed to be a distinguishing ground. No such stipulation exists in the HPSEB Rules. Yet, of material significance is the fact that the higher post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota.
Amongst these individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as a Junior Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub-quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a prescribed period. This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it only shows the intent of the rule makers not to exclude degree holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers.
38. As noticed previously, in addition to the aboveconsiderations, an amendment to the rules was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those with higher qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for appointment. This amendment was brought in to clear all doubts and controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions should be deemed to have been inserted from inception.
39. For the foregoing reasons, these batches of appeals by the degree holders have to succeed. The respondent HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants, including the degree holders who participated, and depending on the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside; the appeals are allowed and writ petition is allowed partly, in the above terms, without order on costs."
6.4 The records would reveal that the applicant had following requisite/higher qualification for the post of TGT/MI as dealt by others in common decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court.
"BA with MIL concerned as one of the Elective subjects from a recognized University having 45% marks in aggregate with one additional language or one school subject at Degree level."
6.5 The applicant passed her graduation examination in the year 2009. After passing graduation she has passed Punjabi Elective subject of Graduation in year 2009 to 2011 continuously for two years, and thereafter she has passed Master Degree in 15 O.A. No. 983/2020 Punjabi in the year 2014-15. She has passed additional Punjabi Subject from University after passing graduation before passing Master Degree as per rule. Hence, she is eligible to get benefit of Punjabi Subject in Graduation Degree.
6.6 Our Attention is also drawn to the fact the Kurushetra University, Kurukshetra also issued a clarification dated 29.9.2020, which is re-produced as under:-
"Sub: Regarding information of syllabus of Panjabi Elective 2010- 2011.
Reference to your application dated 29.09.2020 on the subject cited above.
This is to inform you that syllabus of Panjabi Elective (Additional Subject) of B.A 2nd year (2009-10) and B.A 3rd year (2010-11) annual system, is same as syllabus of Panjabi Elective (Regular Students) of B.A. 2nd years (2009-10) and B.A 3rd years (2010-11) annual system."
6.7 The applicant had studied Punjabi all through her schooling as per the certificates of middle examination and matriculation examination attached with the OA.
7. CONCLUSION 7.1 In present case, the respondents have misapplied and misquoted the decision rendered in the case of GNCT VS Snehlata in facts of the present case. The facts of Snehlata (supra) are quite distinguishable, as already quoted in detail herein above, it is only Snehlata case the order passed in the OA was set aside. The respondents ought to have considered the ratio of the case of Neelam Rana in W.P.( C) No.575/2013, 16 O.A. No. 983/2020 which is squarely applicable in the case of the present applicant.
Therefore, the deficiency memo dated 31.10.2019 and Office Order dated 19.8.2020 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to offer the letter of appointment to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. It is further made clear that the applicant shall only be entitled for consequential benefits on notional basis from the date of offer of appointment issued to her immediate junior. Also, the applicant shall be entitled to actual salary and benefits from date of her joining. It is also made clear that in absence of any vacancy; the applicant shall be adjusted against anticipated vacancy or future vacancy.
7.2 The OA is allowed in aforesaid terms.
7.3 No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/sm/