Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Manoj Kumar vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 24 September, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.4159/2013 New Delhi this the 24th day of September, 2014 Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) Honble Mr. V.N.Gaur, Member (A) Sh. Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Rambilas, R/o -20, Raj Park, Near Shiv School, Sultan Puri, Delhi-86. ... Applicant (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra ) VERSUS 1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi 2. The Directorate, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt., Delhi 3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi-92. .. Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra ) O R D E R Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J):
In terms of the advertisement number 02/2010 published by Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board), the applications were invited for the post of PGT (Physics) Male Post Code 37/10 Total 12 ( UR 06, SC 03, OBC 03). The details of vacancies for the post as mentioned in the advertisement read as under:-
PGT (Physics) Male Post Code 37/10 Total 12 ( UR 06, SC 03, OBC 03). The applicant applied for the post and participated in the selection. He got 162 marks in Part II of the written examination and got third position in the list of qualified candidates in UR category. However, his candidature was cancelled in terms of the impugned order no.2(8)(159)/E-II/2013/11568 dated 18.09.2013 which reads as under:-
Whereas Sh. Manoj Kumar was nominated by DSSSB to this Directorate of Education for appointment to the post of PGT/ Lecturer in (Physics) vide letter No.F.1(94)/DSSSB/ P&P/O8/5762 dated 10.09.2012.
Whereas a memorandum was issued to him vide letter N. F.No.DE.2 (8) 159E-II/2012/III/10178 dated 20.11.2012 for verification of his documents/certificates pertaining to her qualifications.
Whereas in the scrutiny of educational certificates it is found that Sh. Manoj Kumar has his masters degree in Electronics which is not exactly same as required in our RRs. The expert committee constituted to look into the matter was of the opinion that the candidate for the post of PGT (Physics) must have M.Sc degree in physics as they can impart the basic concepts in Physics clearly to teach the students at the Senior Secondary level. Further the committee opined that the candidate having Masters degree inn particular subjects like Electronics, Material Science, Nano Technology etc. is not competent to do justice to the basic subjects of Physics upto Senior Secondary level, as these subjects cover only the small components of the syllabus or course contents taught to the students at Senior Secondary level.
Now, therefore, the candidature of Sh. Manoj Kumar for the post of PGT (Physics) is hereby cancelled and his dossier returned back to DSSSB.
These issues with the prior approval of competent authority. Mr. Ajesh Lutha, learned counsel for applicant submitted that:
Electronics is one of the branch of Physics and being M.Sc. (Electronics), the applicant was fully eligible for the post in question.
(ii) In terms of the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of PGT (Physics) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti, the M.Sc (Physics)/Electronics/Applied Physics/Nuclear Physics are eligible for appointment to the post of PGT (Physics).
(iii) The minimum eligibility requirement for admission to Master Degree course in Physics in Delhi University include B.Sc (H) (Electronics), thus Master in Electronics cannot be held ineligible for the post of M.Sc. (Physics).
(iv) When the applicant is considered ineligible for the post in question, certain candidates, namely, Anil Kumar, Pravesh Kumar and Sachin Kumar who are M.Sc. in Physics with Electronics/Materials are considered eligible for the post in question.
2. On the other hand, Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the RRs for the post, the Masters Degree in the subject concerned from any recognized University is one of the essential qualification for the post and only such candidates who possessed the qualification of M.Sc in Physics could be considered eligible for the post. As far as the candidates mentioned in Para 4.9 of the OA are concerned, admittedly they are M.Sc in Physics and if the Electronics or Materials are studied by them as an optional or special subject in M.Sc. Course, their degree cannot be construed as Masters in (Electronics). As can be seen from the special recruitment advertisement No.51/2012 and examination notice dated 10.03.2012 published by the UPSC, the degree in Physics and Electronic are considered separate and independent. She further submitted that:-
As mentioned in the notice, under the head, Mode of Selection the appointing authority i.e. the indenting department was required to satisfy itself about the authenticity of the documents/certificate and eligibility of the candidates as per the RRs before finally appointing the candidates and in discharge of such responsibility the respondent No. 2 could find that only those candidates who are PGT (Physics) can impart the basic concept in Physics clearly to the students at Senior Secondary level, thus the candidates possessing degree in the said subject alone could have been considered eligible for the post in question.
(ii) In the result notice 77 dated 22.08.2012, it was specifically mentioned that the selection of the candidates was subject to fulfilling the eligibility conditions for the post as prescribed in the statutory RRs and terms and conditions of the advertisement no. 02/2010, whereby the applications for the posts in question were invited.
(iii) The question whether the M.Sc (Electronics) is eligible for the post of PGT (Physics) or not was referred to the Expert Committee comprising of a representative from University of Delhi and the said Expert Committee viewed that the candidates for the post of PGT (Physics) must have M.Sc. degree in Physics as they had to impart the basic concept in Physics clearly to teach the students at the Senior Secondary Level and the candidates having Masters Degree in Electronics were not competent to do justice to the basic subject of Physics upto Senior Secondary Level. Finally she relied upon the following judgments/orders:-
(i) State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs Lata Arun ( JT 2002 (5) SC 210)
(ii) Dr.Kamal Chauhan Vs.UOI and Ors (OA 1918/2012 PB)
(iii) Ferzana Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2008(4) AD (Delhi) 448).
3. We heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record. In view of the submission put forth by the counsels for parties, the following questions arise to be determined by us:-
(i) Whether the eligibility and suitability of the candidates for a particular post has to be determined with reference to the RRs and the Scheme of Examination/Mode of Selection mentioned in the notice of selection/examination or by an Expert Committee constituted by the user department, and whether the Expert Committee can be said to have assessed the suitability of the candidates.
(ii) Whether the qualification prescribed for the post of PGT (Physics) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti can be guiding factor for determining the eligibility for the post of PGT (Physics) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. As far as the first question is concerned, it is settled position of law that it is basically the function of the rule making authority to provide the basis for selection and even the Selection Board or for that matter, any other Selection Committee do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorized specifically in this regard by the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Selection Committee does not have any inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can it assume such power by necessary implication. In Dr. Krushan Chandra Sahu & others Vs. State of Orissa & Ors (JT 1995) 7 SC 137), it could be held thus:-
33. Now, power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed on Govt. posts is available to the Governor of the State under the Proviso to Art. 309 and it was in exercise of this power that the present Rules were made. If the statutory Rules, in a given case, have not been made, either by the Parliament or the State Legislative, or, for that matter by the Governor of the State, it would be open to the appropriate Government (the Central Government under Art. 73 and the State Government under Art. 73 and the State Government under Art. 162) to issue executive instructions. However, if the Rules have been made but they are silent on any subject or point in issue, the omission can be supplied and the rules can be supplemented by executive instructions. [See Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (AIR 1967 SC 1910)].
34. In the instant case, the Government did neither issue any administrative instruction nor did it supply the omission with regard to the criteria on the basis of which suitability of the candidates was to be determined. The members of the Selection Board, of their own, decided to adopt the confidential character rolls of the candidates who were already employed as Homeopathic Medical Officers, as the basis of determining their suitability.
35. The members of the Selection Board or for that matter, any other Selection Committee, do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorised specifically in that regard by the Rules made under Art. 309. It is basically the function of the rule making authority to provide the basis for selection. This Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Sadanandam, AIR 1989 SC 2060 observed as under (para 16, at pp. 2065-66 of AIR):-
"We are now only left with the reasoning of the Tribunal that there is no justification for the continuance of the old Rule and for personnel belonging to either zones being transferred on promotion to offices in other zones. In drawing such conclusion, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction. We need only point out that the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive. It is not for judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the executive".
(Emphasis supplied)
36. The Selection Committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication. In Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCR 200: (AIR 1984 SC 541), it was observed (para 44, at p.562 of AIR):-
"By necessary inference, there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If, such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reasons that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm".
37. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, 1985 Suppl (2) SCR 367 : (AIR 1985 SC 1351), it was observed that the Selection Committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these decisions were followed in Sh. Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, (1987) 2 UJ (SC) 657 : (AIR 1987 SC 2267) and the limitations of the Selection Committee were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate had to secure at the viva voce test.
38. It may be pointed out that rule making function under Art. 309 is legislative and not executive as was laid down by this Court in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 561. For this reason also, the Selection Committee or the Selection Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis for selection as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection.
39. If it were a mere matter of transition from one service to another service of similar nature as, for example, from Provincial Forest Service to All India Forest Administrative Service, the confidential character rolls could have constituted a valid basis for selection either on merit or suitability as was laid down by this Court in Pervez Qadir v. Union of India, 1975(2) SCR 432 : AIR 1975 SC 446: (1975) 4 SCC 318 which has since been followed in R.S. Dass v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 593. But in the instant case, appointments are being made on posts in an entirely new service, though the educational qualifications required to be possessed by the candidates are the same as were required to be possessed in their earlier service.
40. A candidate in order to be suitable for appointment on a teaching post must have at least three qualities; he should have thorough knowledge of the subject concerned; he should be organized in his thoughts and he should possess the art of presentation of his thoughts to the students. These qualities cannot possibly be indicated or reflected in the confidential character rolls relating to another service, namely, the service in the Health Department as Homoeopathic Medical Officers where the character rolls would only reflect their integrity, their punctuality, their industry and their evaluation by the Reporting or the Accepting Officer recorded in the annual entries. True it is that the candidates being already serving officers, their character rolls have to be looked into before inducting them in the new service but this can be done only for the limited purpose of assessing their integrity etc. These character rolls, however, cannot form the SOLE basis for determination of their suitability for the posts of junior teachers in the Medical Colleges. Then, what formula or method should be adopted to assess these qualities is the question which next arises. This Court in Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 : AIR 1981 SC 1777 pointed out (at p. 1778 of AIR) :-
"The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services".
(emphasis supplied) As can be seen from the aforementioned judgment, if the rules are silent on any subject or point in issue, the omissions need to be supplied and supplemented by executive instructions.
5. In the present case, the RRs for the post in question provided Master Degree in the subject concerned from any recognized university as one of the essential qualifications for being eligible for the post. Admittedly, there is course of Masters Degree in Physics. Nevertheless, since, the candidates, who were M.Sc in other subjects also applied for the post, the appointing authority took upon it the responsibility to satisfy itself about the eligibility of the candidates. In such process a decision was taken to refer the issue to an Expert Committee consisting of the members from the Directorate of Education and Delhi University as it was so done in the case of PGT (Home Science). Such decision was taken at the level of Secretary (Education).
6. As a result of aforementioned decision, the following Committee was constituted to consider the case of the candidates having educational qualification of Master Degree in the subjects other than Physics, regarding their appointment for the post of PGT (Physics).
In pursuance of the approval of the competent authority a committee with the following constitution is hereby constituted for the purpose of deliberating the issue detailed below and to make recommendation in this regard.
1. Smt. Sunita Kaushik, Addl.DE (School) Chairman
2. Dr. Amita Chandra, Department of Physics, University of Delhi. Member
3. Shri V.K.Gaur (Physics), Principal S.V.Shankaryacharya Marg, Delhi Member
4. Dr. Rajesh Kumar (Physics), Principal, DIET, Darya Ganj Member The committee will examine the following issue and submits its report within two weeks time positively:
Whether the candidate having educational qualification in Master Degree in Electronics is fit for the appointment of PGT (Physics).
As the qualifications in the Degree of Manoj Kumar is M.Sc.in Electronics. As contended by the learned counsel for respondents, the Committee categorically viewed that the candidates for the post of PGT (Physics) must have Master Degree in Physics and the candidates having Master Degree in Electronics/Material/Nano Technology are not competent to do justice to the basic subject of Physics upto the senior secondary level. For easy reference, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee dated 25.07.2013 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A meeting was held on 25.07.013 at 10.15am under the chairperson ship of Smt. Sunita Kaushik, Addl.D.E. (School) in her Chamber to examine the issue Whether the candidate having educational qualification in Masters Degree in Electronics is eligible for the appointment of PGT (Physics). The following members were present:-
1. Smt. Sunita Kaushik, Addl.DE (School) Chairman
2. Dr. Amita Chandra, Department of Physics, University of Delhi. Member
3. Shri V.K.Gaur (Physics), Principal S.V.Shankaryacharya Marg, Delhi Member
4. Dr. Rajesh Kumar (Physics), Principal, DIET, Darya Ganj Member The agenda of the meeting was discussed in details and the committee decided unanimously the following:-
The Candidate for the post of PGT (Physics) must have M.Sc. degree in Physics as they can impart the basic concepts in Physics clearly to teach the students at the Senior Secondary Level.
The Candidate having Masters degree in particular subjects i.e.
i) Electronics
ii) Material Science
iii) Nano Technology etc.
iv) is not competent to do justice to the basic subject of Physics upto Senior Secondary level, as these subjects cover only the small components of the syllabus or course contents taught to the students at Senior Secondary Level. From the aforementioned, it is clear that in the wake of doubt regarding the subject in which Master Degree was required to become eligible for the post of PGT (Physics), the only option left to the appointing authority i.e. respondent No. 2 was to refer the matter to Expert Committee and the authority acted accordingly. Though the DSSSB had prescribed the syllabus for part I and Part II of the examination and tested the suitability of the candidates by subjecting them to such examination, but it had emphasized in the notice for examination as also in result notice that a view regarding eligibility was required to be taken by the appointing authority. In the RRs, it was specifically mentioned that in order to become eligible for the post in question, the candidates needed to possess Masters degree in the concerned subject. In order to identify the concerned subject, the appointing authority appointed Expert Committee and the Committee identified the M.Sc degree in Physics as the degree in concerned subject. Thus it is not so that the Expert Committee assessed the suitability of the candidates for the post in question but it only identified the concerned subject in which Master Degree was required to be possessed by the candidates to become eligible for the post. From the minutes of meeting of the Committee, it is more than clear that the Committee did not assess the suitability of the individuals, but only assessed the suitability of the qualification i.e. Master Degree in the subject required to be possessed by the candidates to become eligible for the post in question. In view of the aforementioned it is held that in the wake of doubt regarding concerned subject, the respondent No 2 was justified in determining the concerned subject with reference to RRs to determine the eligibility of the candidates after obtaining the view of Expert Committee (ibid).
7. As far as the second question is concerned, apparently all the candidates possessing M.Sc (Physics)/ Electronics/Applied Physics/Nuclear Physics were eligible for the post of PGT (Physics) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. The RRs for a post in one organization cannot be a guiding factor for appointment to the post in another organization and cannot be a ground for determination of eligibility of candidates for any post by the Court. As has been held in the State of Jharkhand and Another Vs. Govind Singh (2005) 10 SCC 437), the Judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a lawmaker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. For easy reference, para 15 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
15. Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the Judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so". (See: Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in "Essays on Jurisprudence", Columbia Law Review, P.51.) Relying upon judgment cited by learned counsel for respondents in Dr. Kamal Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Ors (OA 1918/2012), a Division Bench of this Tribunal presided by Honble Chairman categorically viewed that the Tribunal is not a substitute for expert or academic bodies constituted for specific purpose of deciding equivalence of degrees. The denouement reads as under:-
8. We have carefully considered the pleadings and such documentary evidences as have been adduced by the parties and have carefully listened to the oral submissions made by their respective learned counsels and on the basis thereof, the following issues emerge for determination:-
Who is competent to declare the equivalence of the degrees?
Whether the certificate provided by the Director, CFSL, CBI is tantamount to accepting the equivalence of degrees prescribed?
Whether this Tribunal is competent to issue directions for treating equivalence?
Whether the applicant having been selected by the Selection Committee appointed by the UPSC confers any right upon him to appointment?
What relief, if any, could be provided to the applicant?
xxx xxx
11. In so far as the third issue is concerned, the basic postulates need to be clearly spelt out. It is a well accepted fact that this Tribunal is not a substitute for expert or academic bodies constituted for specific purpose of deciding equivalence of degrees. The superior courts have repeatedly emphasized that the Tribunals/Courts should be content to adjudicate within their own realm and should be loath to venture into academic question like equivalence of degrees or their adequacy /inadequacy to particular requirements. These matters are best left to such bodies or people who have been specially designated for this purpose. Before the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another versus Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, Etc. [1984 (4) SCC 27] a similar issue had cropped up for decision. When the respondents laboring under the feeling that a proper evaluation of their performance had not been done in the examination, they staked a claim demanding inspection of the copies to ascertain whether there was a proper evaluation of the answers to all questions, whether the totaling of marks had been done correctly and whether there had been any tempering with the seat numbers written on the answer books and supplementary sheets. They had further claimed that the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject be declared as ultra vires, unreasonable and void on account of not having such provisions to such effect. Their claim, though heeded by the Honble High Court in parts, was considered and rejected by the Honble Supreme Court stating that the principles of natural justice could not be extended beyond a reasonable and rational limits or carried to such absurd lengths as making the examinees to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the evaluators. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
4.It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred on the delegate by the Statute. Though this legal position is well-established by a long series of decisions of this Court, we have considered it necessary to reiterate it in view of the manifestly erroneous approach made by the High Court to the consideration of the question as to whether the impugned cl. (3) of Regn. 104 is ultra vires. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we shall now proceed to consider the challenge levelled against the validity of the Regn. 104 (3).
In yet another case titled as Bhushan Uttam Khare versus the Dean, B.J. Medical College and Others [1992(2) SCC 220], the appellant had applied with 166 other students for revaluation to the Executive Council of the University for making an enquiry on report of the Committee. The University of Pune decided to cancel the revaluation result and to conduct further revaluation. The decision of the Executive Council cancelling the earlier revaluation and directing a second revaluation was challenged by the petitioners and others in a Writ before the Honble High Court of Bombay which was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The appellants then approached the Honble Supreme Court which upheld the view taken by the Honble High Court that the educational institutions set up Enquiry Committee to deal with the problems posed by the adoption of unfair means and it is clearly within their domestic jurisdiction to decide all questions in the light of the material adduced. Unless there is an absolute and compelling justification, the Courts are slow to interfere with the autonomous activities of the Executive Councils. The Honble Supreme Court has held as under:-
8. We have considered all the materials placed before us in the light of arguments advanced keeping in mind the well accepted principle that in deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. We are satisfied that there had been sufficient material before the Executive Council to proceed in the manner in which it has done. It is not correct to say that the University had acted on non existing rule for ordering revaluation. Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation also for further action. The fact that two examiners were also the members of the Committee which recommended for revaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the original evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also there had been some changes between the original valuation and the revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring or demonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting the relief sought for. We can only observe that the case of the petitioner, who alone has come before this Court and who had secured higher marks in the first revaluation and is, therefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same, would be duly considered in the selection for Post-Graduate Course. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Likewise, in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others versus Lata Arun [2002 (6) SCC 252], the Honble Supreme Court has taken a similar view. In the said case the issue involved was that whether the respondent had eligibility qualification for admission in General Nursing, Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course commencing in the year 1990. The Director, Medical and Health Services had invited applications from eligible candidates for admission in the nursing course having passed the first year of three years' degree course (TDC) or 10+2 and the candidates with science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) will be given preference. The respondent also applied for the said post. She had obtained a Madhyama Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in 1984. This certificate was previously recognized as equivalent to a degree in Hindi. However, the said recognition had ceased to be operative from 1985, which is certified by the Deputy Secretary, Association of Indian Universities. The matter went upto the Honble High Court, which left it to the discretion of the Nursing Council being the competent body, which decided that the respondent was not eligible. However, the Honble Supreme Court held that such matters are best considered by appropriate authorities and it is not for the Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed by the authorities. For the sake of greater clarity, the relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
3. From the ratio of the decisions noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. Further in State of Rajasthan and Anr. Lata Arun ( JT 2002 (5) SC 210), Honble Supreme Court ruled that the eligibility qualification for recruitment in service is a matter to be considered by the appropriate authority and it is not for Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. The denouement reads as under:-
4. The question which arises for determination in this case is whether the respondent had the eligibility qualification for admission in general nursing and midwifery and staff nurse course (hereinafter referred to as "nursing course') commencing in the year 1990? The director, medical and health services had invited applications by 15.12.1989 from eligible candidates for admission in the nursing course to be started from January, 1990. It was stated in the notification that the candidates should have passed first year of three years' degree course (TDC) or 10+2; and that the candidates with science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) will be given preference. During the period the indian nursing council had issued a set of syllabi and regulations for courses in general nursing and midwifery in which the prescribed minimum educational qualification for all candidates was 12th class pass or its equivalent preferably with science subjects. .
xxx xxx
13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. Also in Ferzana Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi ( 2008 (4) AD (Delhi) 448), Honble Delhi High Court could held thus:-
20. It is clear that in the present case we are concerned with the recruitment to the post of Primary Teachers in MCD. These teachers are required to teach students at primary level i.e. up to Standard V. These small children are to be given basic education in Hindi language. Rather, they are to be initiated into this language from scratch, namely, from alphabets and then into the basic grammar, for which purpose the teacher is required to be equipped in a specific mold. It is the case of the MCD that keeping this in mind the prescription of studying Hindi language at secondary level is provided in the recruitment rules. This is explained in the counter affidavit in rather greater details, as would be evident from the following averments contained therein :-
12. It is submitted that the teachers being required to teach children at the primary level in Delhi there is nothing irrational in the requirement of passing Hindi at the secondary level being the popularly understood local language as well as the medium of instruction. At the Primary Level one teacher is required to teach all the classes from I to V which includes imparting education in the language subject of Hindi as well which is prescribed for all the five years. The focus of language education at this stage is to provide the building blocks to lay a strong foundation on which the child can build in the future. While teaching Hindi to students of primary classes it is necessary that the teacher be himself aware of and well conversant with the basic grammatical skills of the language such as alphabets, word formation, spelling and recognition of writing symbols, sentence formation and correction, singular-plural, masculine-feminine gender, present-past-future tenses, synonyms, antonyms, usage of phrases, verbs, nouns, adjectives etc. There is an appreciable difference in the purpose, curriculum and manner in which the language course of Hindi is structured at the secondary, senior secondary and higher level. Even though a person may possess valuable written or spoken skills of the language which he may acquire at a higher level yet absence of knowledge of the basic and rudimentary building blocks of the same may prove to be detrimental while teaching small children the basic alphabets of the same language in a simplistic yet interesting manner. Superior knowledge of scriptures or the ability to write reports, features complex essays or translate complex passages may not be a adequate substitute for the basic knowledge of grammar and the skill set which is exclusive to the secondary level and essential for teaching the same to the children at the primary level. Copies of the syllabii of Hindi as it is taught at the secondary level and senior secondary level along with the paper schematic and syllabus for the B Com (Pass) level are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure 3.
13. A perusal of the same shows that it is only at the Class X that the basic grammatical skills of the language which constitute its essential building blocks are taught and tested. Focus at the higher levels is on study of poetry, scriptures, different forms of the language as it stood in different times and practical use of the language etc. and it cannot be simplistically concluded by an empirical/ comparative evaluation that study of Hindi at BCom (Pass) is greater than/better than or a substitute for study of Hindi at the secondary level. Neither can it be assumed that a person who has studied Hindi at the BCom level would be equipped with the skill set of Hindi prescribed at the secondary level (the skill sets, curriculum, methodology of study, importance attached to the study of the subject all being different) and such a presumption in the absence of an analysis of the course contents, teaching methodology etc. would not be correct. It is only in case of courses such as M Tech which one is allowed to do only after B Tech that M Tech can be considered higher than B Tech. In the case of Hindi language it is possible for a person to have not studied the same at the secondary level but only at the senior secondary levels or at one of these levels and a higher level. Even across various levels the curriculum is different depending upon whether Hindi is studied as a compulsory or as an optional subject and at the higher levels it is different depending also upon whether Hindi is studied at the secondary level or the senior secondary level. As mentioned earlier a person having working/functional knowledge of Hindi at the Higher Level may not be equipped with the knowledge of the grammatical skills and the manner in which they are taught to the children at the secondary level. It is respectfully submitted that whether Hindi at secondary level is suitable for teaching students at the primary level or Hindi at higher level is suitable for the said purpose, whether knowledge of Hindi studied at Higher level is greater than or a substitute for Hindi studied at the secondary level are all technical questions the answers of which best ought to be left to technical/specialist bodies. Merely because a candidate has studied Hindi at a B Com level as in the instant case does not imply that he ipso facto fulfills the eligibility criterion of having passed Hindi at the secondary level as it is possible to study Hindi even at the higher level without passing the same at the secondary level. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the Petitioner did not pass Hindi at the secondary level. It is stated that the Petitioner has qualified the Hindi language as a subject while passing the B Com (Pass) course. Though the marksheets attached with the Petition are unclear it is submitted that the curriculum of Hindi prescribed at the B Com (Pass) level is completely different from that at the secondary level. The B Com (Pass) course being essentially a commerce course the thrust in papers related to that subject and the study of a language is required only as one of the optional subjects that too not for the duration of the entire course as part of study of one of the modern Indian languages. In view of the different skill set acquired by the candidates at different levels and keeping in mind the fact that the small children need to be taught the basic skills rather than scriptures the prescription of study of Hindi at a secondary level has a direct nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and therefore the said qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary.
21. We find sufficient justification/rational in providing for the aforesaid qualifying course at secondary level for the post in question. It is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and specific objective is sought to be achieved thereby for which sufficient justification/rational is given by the MCD. Once the respondents are able to satisfy such a rationality, further probe into a policy decision like this in prescribing these qualifications in the recruitment rules, which are of statutory nature, is not permitted as per the dictum noticed in various judgments in the foregoing paragraphs. As far as the plea of the applicant regarding eligibility of the candidates mentioned in para 4.9 is concerned, it is not so that they possessed Masters Degree in Electronics. In fact, admittedly they were M.Sc. (Physics) with Electronics and Materials as optional and specialization subject. No comparison can be drawn between M.Sc (Physics) (Electronics) and M.Sc (Electronics). Besides, once an Expert Committee has taken a view regarding the interpretation of the concerned subject mentioned in the RRs and has arrived at a conclusion that one needs to have the qualification of M.Sc (Physics) to become eligible for the post of PGT (Physics) in the subject, we cannot take our independent view in the matter. As far as the plea of applicant regarding eligibility for admission in M.Sc course in Physics in Delhi University is concerned, the eligibility for admission in Masters course cannot be considered as a guiding factor to determine the concerned subject mentioned in the RRs for a particular post. In the present case, once the rules specifically indicated the requisite qualification as Masters Degree in the subject concerned, the concerned subject being Physics, no fault can be found with the respondents in considering only M.Sc. (Physics) as eligible for appointment to the post of PGT (Physics). Similarly, merely because the Bachelors Degree in Physics or Mathematics and degree in Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics are mentioned as essential qualification for the post of Airworthiness in two separate columns, we may not advent to form an opinion as to whether Electronics is a branch of Physics or Engineering. As has been held hereinabove, it is for an Expert Committee to find out the meaning of the concerned subject used in the RRs and in all fairness, the respondents have already taken a decision in this regard after obtaining the views of the Expert Committee.
8. In view of the aforementioned, we decline to interfere with the impugned order and cancellation of the candidature of the applicant. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
( V.N.Gaur ) (A.K.Bhardwaj) Member (A) Member (J) sk ..