Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Surender Singh vs Navodya Vidyalaya Sanghathan on 1 September, 2023
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2003/2017
Reserved on: 02.08.2023
Pronounced on: 01.09.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Surender Singh, Aged 42 years,
S/o Sh. Man Phool Singh,
Permanent R/o H.No. 530/10
Tau Nagar, Sonipat Road,
Rohtak (Haryana)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma with
Ms. Vaishali Sulkhlan)
Versus
1. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti through
Commissioner,
B-15, Institutional Area,
Sector - 62, Noida- 201 309.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Estt.-I),
Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti,
B-15, Institutional Area,
Sector - 62, Noida- 201 309.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S. Rajappa)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order quashing the select 2 list dated 31.03.2017 and merit wise result to the post of principal only to the extent by which the name of the applicant has not been included in the select list and the applicant has been declared not eligible for the post of Principal and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to declare the interview marks of the applicant and consequently, consider the case of the applicant for his appointment to the post of Principal with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment of junior and similarly situated persons.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not disclosing the interview marks of the applicant is totally illegal and arbitrary and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to disclose the interview marks of the applicant and prepare a fresh merit wise result accordingly with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-
2.1 The respondents invited applications for various posts including the post of Principal in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) vide advertisement published in Employment News dated 10- 16.09.2016. As the applicant, presently working as PGT (Math) in NVS, fulfilled the eligibility criteria, applied for the post in question in the prescribed form through proper channel. He appeared in the written examination held on 04.12.2016 with Roll No.42900950.3
2.2 Having qualified the written examination, he was shortlisted for interview and vide order dated 10.02.2017, he was called for the same scheduled to be held on 06.03.2017. Accordingly, the applicant appeared for interview before the Interview Board on the date fixed where all his documents including the experience certificate were duly verified.
2.3 The respondents vide impugned letter dated 31.03.2017 issued the select panel of candidates for the post of Principal on the basis of their performance in the written examination and interview but the name of the applicant was not included therein. However, along with the select list, the respondents also issued merit wise result of all the candidates wherein the name of the applicant found mention at serial no.246 showing that he secured 110 marks out of 178 marks i.e. 49.438% out of 80% whereas in respect of the interview, he had been awarded zero mark by showing 'NEL' out of 120 marks.
2.4 Aggrieved, the applicant sought information under RTI Act, vide application dated 10.04.2017 to know the full form of 'NEL' and also the marks obtained by him in the interview. The respondents vide letter 4 dated 02.05.2015 informed the applicant that 'NEL' stands for 'not eligible and less experienced' in the requisite scale of pay and no marks were required to be awarded to 'NEL' candidates, hence, the applicant was not awarded any mark in the interview.
2.5 The act of the respondents declaring the applicant not eligible due to less experience is totally illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the applicant possessed the prescribed 12 years of experience as PGT/Master/Lecturer in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre-revised) in Senior Secondary School, as per the requirement mentioned in the advertisement.
Details of experience acquired by the applicant during his service are given below:-
Sl.No. Period School
1 09.07.2002-06.05.2003 Harkishan memorial
Public School, Sonepat
Road, Rohtak.
2 01.07.2003-05.03.2005 D.H. Lawrence Sr. Sec.
School, Jhajjar (Har.)
3 06.03.2005-02.07.2006 D.P.S. Rohtak
4 03.07.2006-31.07.2007 Shribaba Mastnath Sr.
Sec. Public School,
Rohtak.
5 04.08.2007- till date NVS
2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant possessed the requisite length of experience, hence, the respondents could not have 5 taken the decision otherwise without verifying the experience of the applicant from the concerned schools.
2.7 Once the applicant had appeared for interview before the Interview Board, there was no justification or reasoning for not mentioning the marks of interview in the merit list. Admittedly, distribution of marks of written examination and interview were in the ratio of 80% and 20%. Though applicant secured 110 marks in the written examination, yet one Sh. Kharat Sachin Dattaatray, who secured 109 marks i.e. less marks than the applicant, has been selected in an arbitrary manner without showing the marks obtained by the applicant in the interview under the garb of 'NEL'. 2.8 The whole action of the respondent declaring the applicant not eligible without awarding marks in the interview, is totally illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice.
3. Per contra, the respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant. Apart from narrating factual matrix of the case, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applicant 6 applied for recruitment to the post of Principal on the basis of 12 years' experience as PGT (Maths) in a senior secondary school. He appeared in the written test and on the basis of marks obtained by him, he was shortlisted for verification of documents and interview. Accordingly, he was called at NVS Hqrs, Noida for verification of his documents and interview on 06.03.2017 vide letter dated 10.02.2017 wherein it was specifically mentioned that 'if a candidate at the time of checking/verification of documents is found not eligible, he/she shall not be permitted to appear in the interview'.
3.1 On scrutiny of documents, it was found that the applicant did not possess the valid requisite 12 years' experience as PGT/Master/Lecturer in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre-revised) Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800 (revised) in a senior secondary school for the post. As per documents submitted by the applicant, he was found to be having experience of only 11 years 4 months and 24 days in the prescribed pay scale which fell short of the requisite experience of 12 years. Resultantly, he was not permitted to appear in the interview and, 7 hence, the question of awarding any mark for the interview does not arise.
4. The applicant filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and stated that the applicant worked as PGT Teacher (Math) in Hari Kishan Memorial Public School, Rohtak from 09.07.2002 to 06.05.2003 in the minimum stage of Rs.6500/- in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. Even if this period is deducted from the total experience gained by the applicant, he still had the required experience of 12 years. 4.1 Insofar as period from 01.07.2003 to 05.03.2005 is concerned, the applicant worked against a regular post and every fresh appointment in the government department is on temporary basis till completion of probation period and only after completion of probation period, employee is considered for confirmation. Even otherwise, there was no such condition mentioned in the advertisement that the experience should be on regular basis, which is reproduced hereunder:-
"iii). A minimum of 12 years' experience/service as PGT/Master/Lecturer in the scale of Rs.
6500-10500 (pre-revised) Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4800 (revised) in a senior secondary school."
84.2 The contention of the respondents that the applicant was not allowed to appear in the interview for want of requisite experience of 12 years is incorrect as the applicant appeared for interview and marks were also awarded at the time of interview by the Interview Board.
5. The respondents also filed a supplementary affidavit stating that this Tribunal, vide order dated 07.03.2023, felt that following points need clarification:-
(i) Since the applicant had been appointed as PGT by the respondents and he joined on 04.08.2007 what was the qualification and experience required for the post of PGT at that time; what were the conditions prescribed in the advertisement for the post of PGT against which he has been appointed on 04.08.2007.
(ii) What were the criteria prescribed for appointment as PGT in the year 2007?
(iii) Any other relevant detail.
5.1 In order to resolve the controversy involved in the present case and in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the respondents stated that the applicant was appointed as PGT (Maths) on direct recruitment basis and on his appointment in NVS, he was posted at JNV Karbi Anglong (Assam) 9 where he joined on 04.08.2007. His appointment was made according to the recruitment rules of NVS notified on 22.06.1995 which were modified from time to time vide notifications dated 29.12.1999, 13.03.2000 and 10.04.2003.
5.2 The applicant applied for the post of PGT (Maths) pursuant to advertisement issued by NVS Regional Office, Shillong under Special Recruitment Drive of teaching staff for vidyalayas located in North Eastern Region in the year 2005. As per the recruitment rules in vogue, age limit and educational and other essential & desirable qualifications required for the post of PGT (Maths) were duly mentioned in the advertisement published in the year 2005, which are extracted hereunder:-
"Post Graduate Teacher (PGT):
Age limit for direct recruits - 40 years Educational & other qualifications required for direct recruits Essential - Two years' integrated Post Graduate M.Sc. Course from Regional College of Education of NCERT in the concerned subject OR Master's Degree from a recognized University with at least 50% marks in aggregate in the following subjects.
Mathematics/applied Mathematics Desirable:
1. Experience as TGT in recognized institution.10
2. Experience of working in a residential school.
3. Knowledge of Computer operation.
Principal Qualifications and Experience Essential Qualifications
(a) Master's Degree from a recognized University with at least 50% marks.
(b) B.Ed or equivalent teaching degree
(c) Persons working in any of the Govt./Semi Govt./Govt. recognized/CBSE affiliated Sr. Secondary (10+2) schools/Inter college.
i) Holding analogous post, or
ii) Vice Principal in the scale of Rs.7500-250- 12000/8000-275-13500 (pre-revised), Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400 (revised) with 10 years' experience/service as PGT/Lecturer in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre-revised)/Rs.,9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800 (revised)/or
iii) A minimum of 12 years' experience/service as PGT/Lecturer in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre-revised)/Rs.,9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800 (revised) in a senior secondary school.
5.3 From perusal of the above, one thing is amply clear that it was not essential to possess any experience applying for the post of PGT (Maths) whereas for the post of Principal under direct recruitment quota, the essentially required experience was 'a minimum of 12 years' experience/service as PGT/Master/ Lecturer in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre-revised) Rs.9300-34800 with grade of Rs.4800 (revised) in a senior secondary school in addition to other 11 essential and desirable qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.
5.4 Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applicant was not having the essential valid experience of working in CBSE affiliated senior secondary (10+2) school/Inter-college and a minimum of 12 years' experience/service for applying to the post of Principal as per terms and conditions of the Notification for recruitment as on cut-off date i.e. 31.07.2016, hence, he was rightly declared ineligible and no marks were awarded to him in the interview.
5.5 The respondents also filed written synopsis reiterating the contentions already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
6. Heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma assisted by Ms.Vaishali Sulkhlan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Sunil Kumar Nanda vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr. [OA No.115/2014 decided on 20.05.2015] relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
12
7. ANALYSIS 7.1 With a view to examine the issue on hand, vide record of proceedings dated 07.03.2023 we had directed the respondents as under:-
"The matter was argued at some length by the learned counsel for the parties.
During the course of discussion it was felt that the following points need clarification:-
"(i) Since the applicant had been appointed as PGT by the respondents and he joined on 04.08.2007 what was the qualification and experience required for the post of PGT at that time; what were the conditions prescribed in the advertisement for the post of PGT against which he has been appointed on 04.08.2007.
(ii) What were the criteria prescribed for appointment as PGT in the year 2007?
(iii) Any other relevant detail."
7.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents filed a supplementary affidavit dated 15.05.2023 with some documents, clarifying the points raised. On examination of the said documents, we find that while applying for the post of PGT as per Notification dated 22.6.1995, following were the educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits which are said to be in consonance with the RR's. The same are being re-produced for the sake of clarity:-
13
"7. Education and other qualifications required for direct recruits:
ESSENTIAL:
1. Post-Graduate degree with 60% marks in the relevant subject.
OR Post Graduate Degree with 50% marks in the relevant subject with B.Ed.
2. Proficiency in teaching through English & Hindi. DESIRABLE
1. B.Ed. or equivalent teaching degree.
2. Three years' experience as Trained Graduate Teacher or equivalent.
3. Experience of working in a residential school.
8. Whether age and educational qualifications for direct recruits will apply to promotes:
No - in case of age. Yes-in case of educational qualifications. However, condition of 50% marks in the relevant subjects at Post-Graduate Degree shall not apply in case of promotion.
9. Period of probation, if any: 2 years for direct recruits.
10. Method of rectt. whether by direct rectt.or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of vacancies to be filled by various methods:
1. For Commerce/Accountancy and Eco.100% by direct recruitment.
2. For other subjects 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment, failing which by transfer on deputation."
7.3 By Notification dated 29.12.1999, amended RR's to the post of PGT provide as under:-
36 P.G.T. 1640-60- 6500-200- Promotion: From Entry 2600-EB- 10500 among eligible TGTs in Scale 75-2900 the concerned subject having Post Graduate Senior 7500-250- Degree in the subject Scale 12000 with 3 years' regular service as TGT in the 14 Samiti.
Selection 8000-275- Deputation: Persons Scale 13500 working in Govt/ recognized educational institutes.
(a) Holding analogous post on regular basis OR with 3 years of regular service as TGT with Post Graduate Degree in the concerned subject in the pay scale of Rs.5500- 9000/-.
(b) Possessing educational and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment under Coloumn '7'.
7.4 The respondents again amended the RR's to the Post of PGT, vide Notification dated 13.3.2000, which provided as under:-
"1. In the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers existing Column 7 will be replaced as under:-
7. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits.
ESSENTIAL
1. Post graduate Degree with 50% marks in the relevant subject with B.Ed.
2. Proficiency in teaching through English & Hindi. DESIRABLE
1. Three years' experience as Training Graduate Teacher or equivalent.
2. Experience of working in a residential school. 15
2. In the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers, Note 2 under existing Column 11 shall be deleted." 7.5 Again, the respondents amended the RR's to the Post of PGT, vide Notification dated 10.3.2003, which provided as under:-
Sl. Name of Column Clause Existing Amended Provisions No. Post No. Provisions 1 PGT 6 Age limit for 35 years 40 years direct recruits.
Essential Essential
Educational & 1. Post Graduate 1. Two years'
7 other Decree with Integrated Post
qualifications 50% marks in Graduate M.Sc.
required for the relevant
direct recruits subject with Course from
B.Ed. Regional College of
2. Proficiency in Education of
teaching NCERT in the
through concerned subject
English & OR
Hindi Master's Degree
from a recognized
Desirable University with
1. Three years' atleast 50% marks
experience as in aggregate in the
Trained following subjects.
Graduate (a) PGT(Eng.)-English.
Teacher or (b) PGT(Hindi)-Hindi
equivalent. (c) PGT(Maths)-
2. Experience of Mathematics/
working in a Applied
residential Mathematics.
school. (d) PGT (Phy.)-
Physics/Applied
Physics/Electronic
Physics/Nuclear
Physics.
(e) PGT(Chem)
Chemistry/Bio
Chemistry
(f) PGT (Bio)
Botany/Zoology/
Life Sciences/
Genetics/ Micro
Biology/Bio
Technology/Molec
ular Biology/Plant
Physiology
provided they have
studied Botany
and Zoology at
Graduate level.
(g) PGT(History)-
History.
(h) PGT (Geo)-
Geography.
16
(i) PGT (Eco,)
Economics/
Applied
Economics/
Business
Economics.
(j) PGT (Commerce) -
Commerce with
Accounting/Cost
Accounting/
Financial
Accounting as a
major subject of
study. Holder of
Degree of M.Com
in Applied/
Business
economics shall
not be eligible.
2. B.Ed. or
equivalent.
3. Proficiency in
teaching
through
English &
Hindi.
Desirable
1. Experience as TGT
in recognized
institution.
2. Experience of
working in a
residential school
3. Knowledge of
computer
operation.
7.6 The applicant, vide his application dated 15.07.2005 applied for the post of PGT (Maths), wherein he gave the following details of educational qualification(s):-
Name of Board/ Year of Total Maximum %age Duration Examination University Passing marks Marks of of passed obtained marks course (in years) 10+2 Board of 1992 183 400 45.75 2 Years S.E.Haryana B.A. M.D. U., 1996 605 1200 50.41 3 years Rohtak B.Ed M.D.U., 1998 471 900 52.33 1 year Rohtak M.Sc M.D.U. 2002 506 1000 50.60 2 years Rohtak 17 He also mentioned his experience as under:-
Name of Recognized Residen- Post Period Scale of Subject the (Yes/No) tial held pay and and Institution (Yes/No) salary classes per taught month From To H.M.P.S. Yes -CBSE Yes PGT 9th 11th 6500/pm Maths (Maths) July, May (IX to 2002 2003 XII) D.H.Lawre Yes - CBSE Yes PGT 1st 5th 8800 Maths nce (Maths) July, March (XI & Sr.Sec. 2003 2005 XII) School.
7.7 The Scrutiny Committee, while considering the case of the applicant to the post of PGT (Maths), found him eligible in terms of the educational qualifications as well as the experience, which is set out hereunder:-
"We have checked all documents of the candidates and found the following to report:
1. Qualification - As per Samiti norms/Not as per Samiti norms.
2. Age - As required by Samiti/Overage/Underage.
3. Caste Certificate:Proper/Improper/Not submitted -
N/A (Gen.)
4. Experience - (a) Residential - 10 months.
(b)Non Residential -1 year 08 months Total: 2 years 6 months
5. Any other observation: Only mark sheet in B.Ed.
6. Evaluation - ___ of AISSCE/2005 in Maths (04) Sd/-
Signature of the Scrutiny Committee 7.8 The applicant was shortlisted and called for the interview on 09.02.2006. He was appointed as PGT (Maths) vide 18 Appointment Letter dated 18.07.2007 and joined the services of the respondents as PGT (Maths) w.e.f 04.08.2007 and is continuing on the said post till date. 7.9 The applicant applied for the Post of Principal with respondents pursuant to advertisement dated 10.09.2016. He qualified the written examination and was shortlisted for interview vide letter dated 10.02.2017. He is aggrieved of the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 pertaining to a select panel for the post of Principal on the basis of performance in the written examination and interview without including the name of the applicant. The respondents also issued merit wise result of all the candidates wherein the name of the applicant was included at serial no.246 with the written marks of 110 out of 178 marks i.e. 49.438 percent out of 80 percent and in respect of interview marks out of 120 marks, the applicant has been awarded zero marks by showing "NEL". The applicant sought information through RTI vide his application dated 10.04.2017 regarding the full form of NEL and also regarding his marks secured in interview. The respondents vide letter dated 02.05.2017 informed the applicant that NEL stands for "not eligible and less experience" in the requisite scale of pay and the 19 respondents also informed that the marks for interview were not awarded to ineligible candidates. 7.10 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that declaring the applicant not eligible due to less experience is totally illegal and arbitrary, since as per the advertisement twelve years' experience as PGT/Master/Lecturer in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre- revised) Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/- (revised) in Senior Secondary School was required, which he possessed, details thereof are given as under:-
Sl.No. Period School
1 09.07.2002-06.05.2003 Harkishan memorial
Public School, Sonepat
Road, Rohtak.
2 01.07.2003-05.03.2005 D.H. Lawrence Sr. Sec.
School, Jhajjar (Har.)
3 06.03.2005-02.07.2006 D.P.S. Rohtak
4 03.07.2006-31.07.2007 Shribaba Mastnath Sr.
Sec. Public School,
Rohtak.
5 04.08.2007- till date NVS
7.11 The contentions of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant are that:-
(i) The applicant did not fulfill essential qualifications in terms of Clause (iii) of the Advertisement;
(ii) The Post of PGT (Maths) did not require the applicant to be TGT in the requisite pay band, whereas the Post of Principal, carrying higher responsibility and requires minimum experience in the prescribed pay band.
(iii) The RR's of PGT (Maths) cannot be analogous to the Post of Principal.
(iv) The application preferred by the applicant for the post of Principal (on direct recruitment basis) pursuant 20 to the advertisement dated 10-16 September, 2016, was also processed strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in vogue and terms & conditions mentioned in the notifications dated 10-16 September, 2016 and the applicant is not entitled for any relief, as prayed for by him in the instant OA.
7.12 As per Clause 2(3) of the advertisement, cut-off date for determining the eligibility was 31.07.2016 and not the last date of advertisement i.e. 09.10.2016, which reads as under:-
"2(3) The cut-off date for determining eligibility criteria (Educational Qualifications, Age Limit, Experience etc.) will be 31st July, 2016. Applicants must satisfy about their eligibility as on 31st July, 2016 before applying.
7. The Samiti may take up the verification of eligibility of the candidate at any point of time prior to or after the completion of the selection process. Even if Admit Card is issued to a candidate due to lack of information in the application form or otherwise and if it is found at any stage (including the date of joining & thereafter) that the candidate is not eligible, then his/her candidature shall be summarily rejected.
12.Qualifications acquired by the candidates should be strictly in accordance with the prescribed qualifications. Any candidate seeking claim of equivalence of the qualifications with that of the notified one should furnish documentary evidence in support of their claim at the time of interview/selection, otherwise such cases will be rejected. Similarly, where grades have been given, the position of mark-sheets showing equivalent percentage of marks should be produced at the time of interview/selection."
The RTI information issued vide letter dated 02.05.2017, records as under :-
S.No.1 NEL stands for not eligible S.No.2 Less experience in the requisite scale of pay S.No.3 Please see reply furnished in Point No.2 S.No.4 Marks were not awarded to the not eligible candidates in interview 21 7.13 We find that the last date of application to the Post of Principal was 09.10.2016. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed to the Post of PGT (Maths) taking into account his past experience as highlighted above. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has been rendering his services as PGT (Maths) with the respondents w.e.f 04.08.2007 till date.
7.14 In para 10 of the counter reply, what has been narrated by the respondents is that on scrutiny of the documents it was found that the applicant did not possess the valid requisite 12 years' experience as PGT/Master/Lecturer in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre-revised) Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800 (revised) in a senior secondary school. As per document submitted by the applicant, the experience acquired by him is 11 years 4 months 24 days in the prescribed pay scale which fell short/less from the requisite experience of 12 years in accordance with the recruitment rules of the Samiti. Furthermore, what has been contended by the respondents in para 17 of the counter affidavit in arriving at calculation towards the experience not only contradicts their stand and also at variance to para 10 as highlighted above.
7.15 The applicant in para 17 of the rejoinder stated as under:-22
"Firstly the applicant worked as PGT Teacher (Math) in Hari Kishan Memorial Public School, Rohtak from 09.07.2002 to 06.05.2003 in the minimum stage of Rs.6500/- in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. It is submitted that even after deducting this period the applicant had the required experience as per the advertisement and, therefore, it is totally wrong to say that the applicant has not having required experience. It is submitted that in respect of the second period from 01.07.2003 to 05.03.2005 it is relevant to mention here that this appointment is against a regular post and every appointment even in the Government Department is on temporary basis till completion of probation period and only after completion of probation period employees are considered for confirmation. It is submitted that is clear from the certificate issued by the School that the applicant worked against the regular post. It is submitted that otherwise, also in the advertisement there is no such condition that the experience should be on regular basis. It is further submitted that it is totally wrong to say that the school in question was open on 04.01.2005 but it is clear from the CBSE letter dated 02.01.2003 annexed as Annexure RE-1 that the affiliation was extended beyond 31.03.2004 and therefore, it is totally wrong to ay that the school in question was not available prior to 04.01.005."
The applicant stated that he was having the prescribed years of experience, details whereof is given below:-
Sr School Period Experience
No.
1 Harkishan Memorial 09.07.2022 to 9 months 30
Public School, Sonepat 06.05.2003 days
Road, Rohtak
2 D.H. Lawrence Sr. Sec. 01.07.2003 to 1 year 8 month
School, Jhajjar (Har.) 05.03.2005 4 days
3 D.P.S. Rohtak 06.03.2005 to 1 year 3 months
02.07.2006 27 days
4 Shribaba Mastnath Sr. 03.07.2006 to 1 year 0 months
Sec.Public School, Rohtak 31.07.2007 28 days
5 NVS 04.08.2007- 8 years 11
till date months 27 days
Total Experience as on 31.07.2016 13 years 7
months 16
days
23
P7.16 In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
and another Vs. S.G. Kotturappa AIR 2005 SC 1933, Court held:
"The question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criteria required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with...". (emphasis added) 7.17 In P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank of India and others (2006) 8 SCC 776, it has been observed :
"The Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets."
Illustrative to state that even in cases wherein there is the stipulation of 50% marks and the weight age thereof to the oral interview violates the law laid down by this court in the case of Ajay Hasia and Others vs. Khalid Mujib Sheravardi and Others[(1981) 1 SCC 722, paras 5, 19, 20 and 21]. It is submitted that this stipulation of 50% weight of marks at the oral interview is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan [(1981) 4 SCC 159, para 24 6]. Also reference is drawn to the case of Hitesh Kumar Chauhan vs. Union of India (Supreme Court) and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and Another vs. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 28, para 2] 7.18 The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO.2103 OF 2020(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35373 of 2013) tilted as "Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. V/s Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. observed as under:-
"42. The selection and appointment on post borne on the State establishment provides an opportunity to citizens of public employment. The personnel who man the civil posts in State apart from carrying out objectives and policies of State also serve as source of sustenance for their families. The selection and appointment on post in the State have to conform to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 16. The objective of a State in selecting persons into public service has always been to select the best and most suitable person. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (1981) 4 SCC 159, had laid down that open competition has been accepted universally as the gateway to public services. In paragraphs 4 and 5 following has been laid down:
"4. 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.
"The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness. Competitive examinations were the answer to the twin problems represented by democracy and the requirements of good administration. They were the means by which equality of opportunity was to be united with efficiency.... By this means favouritism was 25 to be excluded and the goal of securing the best man for every job was to be achieved.
Open competitive examinations are a peculiarly democratic institution. Any qualified person may come forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined by a neutral, disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has 'pull'; everyone stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic, it is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern, the same procedures apply, the same yardstick is used to test competence."
5. How should the competitive examination be devised? The Kothari Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods in their report said:
"A system of recruitment almost totally dependent on assessment of a person's academic knowledge and skills, as distinct from ability to deal with pressing problems of economic and social development, with people, and with novel situations cannot serve the needs of today, much less of tomorrow.... We venture to suggest that our recruitment procedures should be such that we can select candidates who can not only assimilate knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a problem but have the potential to develop an original or innovative approach to the solution of problems."
It is now well-recognized that while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview-test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview-test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview- test, much depending on the constitution of the Interview Board."
43. In the above judgment this Court has elaborately considered the merit of selection of written examination as well as usefulness of interview test. The above observations by this Court were quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and 26 others, 1985(4) SCC 417. In paragraph 23 following was laid down:
"23. This Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. pointed out in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan that the object of any process of selection for entry into 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. But the question is how should the competitive examination be devised? The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be based exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case.................."
7.19 The respondents, in the teeth of clause 7 of the advertisement notification, cannot seek a shelter to justify their omission to carry out the important component of Selection Process i.e. "Interview". The point to ponder is that as to whether "NEL" could have been awarded to the applicant for lack of experience in the interview. There is no record to show that the respondent did not conduct the interview. No explanation is also forthcoming to the effect that if the applicant's interview was not conducted, then as who and why "NEL" marks awarded to him. No material/documents have been produced in this regards. Even there is no order rejecting the candidature of the applicant. The Interview Board is not just a single member body to just verify the 27 documents/experience. The said verification stage would have come later.
7.20 Even though the respondent's stand may be presumed to be correct, it was incumbent upon the respondent, being model employer wherein the applicant was already working, to seek verification from the respective schools and CBSE in terms of the contentions urged by them in their counter affidavit. The applicant had placed on record four certificates (Annexure-6) issued by respective schools showing the pay band as well as number of years the applicant had worked with them. The relevant experience has already been disclosed by the applicant in earlier selection process as PGT (Maths) as well as present selection process. We prima facie observe that the total period of experience as on cut-off date comes to 13 years 07 months 16 days, subject to verification. It is not even the case of the respondents that the applicant has mislead and made a false assertion in respect to his experience and pay band. Drawing such an inference without even attempting to verify such documents is without any basis and is not sustainable in law. 28 7.21 Vide interim order(s) dated 01.06.2017, the following had been recorded:-
"Heard.
Notice in OA as also for interim relief. Mr. Puran Chand for Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice for the respondents. Reply be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List on 19.09.2017.
In the meantime, it is directed that one post of Principal in respondent no.1 Institution for which the selection list dated 31.03.2017 has been issued, shall be kept vacant, subject to objection from other side.
Hence, the action of the respondents in not conducting the interview of the applicant is improper in facts and circumstances of the case.
8. CONCLUSION 8.1 In view of the above analysis and factual matrix, we dispose of the present OA with direction to the respondent authorities to conduct de novo interview of the applicant and if he is found otherwise suitable, then appoint him to the post of Principal. In case the applicant is appointed then he shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits on a notional basis as per rules.
298.2 The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) /na/