Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ishwari vs Secretary on 8 April, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A.NO.532 OF 2014 This the 8th day of April, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. Ishwari, d/o Shri Rakesh Chandra, R/o Gali No.12/3, Wazirabad Village, Delhi 110084 Applicant Applicant in person. Vs. 1. Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board(DSSSB), F-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi 110092 2. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi 110054 3. Addl. Director E-IV, Directorate of Education, Govt.of NCT of Delhi, Delhi 110054 4. Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), Statutory Body under the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi 110016 5. The Secretary, National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1 BSZ Marg, New Delhi 110002 6. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Principal Secretary, Education, Delhi Secretariat, Delhi 110092 .. Respondents (By Advocates: Ms.Renu George for R-1 to 3, Mr.Vishu Agarwal for R-5 ORDER Raj Vir Sharma,Member(J):
In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
A. Pass an order of calling for the records of the case and peruse the same.
B. Pass an order of quashing the impugned Advertisement No.01/14 for the Post Code 146/14 of DSSSB dated 21.01.2013 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
C. Pass an order directing the respondents to allow the applicant to appear in the examination for the post of Special Education Teacher.
D. Pass an order directing the respondents to allow the applicant to participate in the competitive examination for the post of Special Education Teacher.
E. Pass an order commanding the respondents to pay the cost of this petition/application to the applicant.
F. Any other order or direction, which may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts of the applicants case are that she acquired the qualification of B.Ed. (Special Education) in June 2013. She was aspiring to be a candidate for selection and appointment as a Special Education Teacher in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. In terms of the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) issued from time to time, the Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, notified the Directorate of Education, Special Education Teacher for (a) Physically Handicapped, (b) Speech Impaired, (c) Mentally Retarded, and (d) Partially Sighted Group B Post Recruitment Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as Recruitment Rules), which were published in the Delhi Gazette No.171, NCTD No.189. As per the provisions of the said Recruitment Rules, the essential qualification and other qualification required for direct recruits are: Graduate with B.Ed. (Special Education), or B.Ed. with a two years Diploma in Special Education, or Post-graduate Professional Diploma in Special Education, or any other equivalent qualification approved by Rehabilitation Council of India. In accordance with the said Recruitment Rules and the guidelines laid down by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), appended to its letter dated 11.1.2012, the applicant was eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) notified the vacancies in the post of Special Education Teacher under the Directorate of Education, vide Advertisement No.01/14, Post Code 146/14, with the following stipulation:
Essential Qualification:
(i) Graduate with B.Ed. (Special Education)or B.Ed. with a two years Diploma in Special Education or Post Graduate Professional Diplloma in Special Education OR any other equivalent qualification approved by Rehabilitation Council of India
(ii) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by CBSE. According to the applicant, the essential qualification mentioned in the Advertisement No.01/14 for Post Code No.146/14 is contrary to the Recruitment Rules and the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India. Therefore, she made representations dated 23.1.2014 to respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, for inclusion of her name in the list of eligible candidates. In this connection, she also met the Director of Education who refused to take any action. She also made representations to the Minister, HRD; Minister, Social Justice & Empowerment; Member Secretary, RCI; Education Minister of Delhi Government; Principal Secretary, Education; Director of Education; Additional Director E-IV; Chairman/member Secretary, NCTE; and Chairman/Secretary, DSSSB, seeking their intervention in the matter. Having failed to get the desired relief, the applicant filed the present O.A.
3. Opposing the O.A, respondent-Government of NCT of Delhi has filed a counter reply. In the counter reply, it is stated that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Special Education Teacher were notified on 4.11.2010. The NCTE, vide its notification dated 23.8.2010, prescribed CTET as one of the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher in Classes I to VIII in a school under the RTE Act, 2009. The Directorate of Education, vide notification dated 7.10.2011(Annexure R/1), recognized the CTET Examination conducted by the CBSE for appointment of Teacher for Classes I to V and Classes VI to VIII. The Rehabilitation Council of India, vide its letter dated 29.2.2012 (Annexure R/3), intimated that they had no objection with regard to incorporating the essential qualification of CTET for the post of Special Education Teacher, provided the course contents are based on D.Ed./B.Ed. in Special Education. The Directorate of Education, vide letter dated 15.10.2012(Annexure R/2), communicated the DSSSB that passing of CTET would be an essential qualification for appointment as Special Education Teacher. It is also stated that a case was earlier filed by some persons in the Honble High Court of Delhi, being W.P. ( C ) No. 2544 of 2013 (Ruchita Arora & others v. UOI and others) praying for allowing them to appear in the examination for the post of Special Education Teacher without having qualification of CTET Examination. The Honble High Court, vide its order dated 22.4.2013 (Annexure R/5), dismissed the said writ petition. O.A.No.788 of 2013 (Bharti Devi Mittal v. GNCTD & ors), wherein similar relief was sought by the applicant, was also dismissed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 6.1.2014(Annexure R/6). In the above view of the matter, the GNCT of Delhi prays for dismissal of the present O.A.
4. Respondent No.4-Rehabilitation Council of India, in its counter reply, has stated that as per the norms laid down by it, the applicant is eligible for the post of Special Education Teacher for Secondary/Senior Secondary level. The CTET/TET has been made compulsory for the appointment of Teachers of general and special categories. It is also stated by the Rehabilitation Council of India that in view of the latest position of the qualified special educators which are very less in number in comparison to the vacancies which are available, the concerned authorities may take a decision to give a one time relaxation to fill up the vacancies.
5. Refuting the stand taken by the Government of NCT of Delhi in its counter reply, the applicant has filed a rejoinder reply along with various documents.
6. We have perused the pleadings and have heard the applicant in person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. In the present O.A, the applicants main challenge is to the Advertisement No.01/14 issued by the DSSSB as regards the Post Code 146/14, i.e., the post Special Education Teacher in the Directorate of Education, prescribing the essential qualification (ii) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the CBSE, in addition to the other essential qualification (i) Graduate with B.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. with a two years Diploma in Special Education or Post Graduate Professional Diploma in Special Education OR any other equivalent qualification approved by Rehabilitation Council of India. According to the applicant, the essential qualification (ii) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the CBSE has neither been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, nor has the same been stipulated in the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India for appointment of Special Education Teacher. It is, therefore, submitted by the applicant that inclusion of the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by CBSE as one of the two essential qualifications for the post of Special Education Teacher by the Government of NCT of Delhi and/or by the DSSSB, being in contravention of the Recruitment Rules and the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is contended by the applicant that even though she has possessed the essential qualification of B.Ed. (Special Education), which is prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and the Rehabilitation Council of India for appointment as Special Education Teacher, yet, because of inclusion of the additional essential qualification of CTET conducted by the CBSE in the Advertisement No.01/14, Post Code 136/14, she is deprived of an opportunity of applying for selection and appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher. We have carefully considered the contentions of the applicant. On a perusal of the records, we have found that the Lt.Governor of Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No.F.27/59-Hum. (I), dated 13.7.1999, has issued notification dated 7.10.2011 prescribing the CTET conducted by the CBSE as one of the essential qualifications for appointment of Teachers for Class I to V and Class VI to VIII in the schools of Delhi. The Rehabilitation Council of India, vide its letter dated 29.2.2012, has also clarified that it has no objection to recruitment of Special Education Teachers through TET, and that the TET for Special Education Teachers should be independent of TET for General Education and based on contents from D.Ed./B.Ed. Special Education courses undergone by the applicants. In the above view of the matter, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Special Education Teacher, which are framed by the Honble Lt.Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India, which are referred to by the applicant, have to be read together with the notification dated 7.10.2011 issued by the Lt.Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution of India prescribing the CTET conducted by the CBSE as one of the essential qualifications for appointment of Teachers for Class I to V and Class VI to VIII in the schools of Delhi and the Rehabilitation Council of Indias letter dated 29.2.2012 (ibid). In view of the notification dated 7.10.2011 (ibid) issued by order and in the name of the Honble Lt. Governor, and the letter dated 29.2.2012 (ibid) issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India, the inclusion of qualification of CTET conducted by the CBSE as one of the essential qualifications for the post of Special Education Teacher cannot be said to be contrary to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Special Education Teacher and the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India. Thus, there is no element of arbitrariness or unreasonableness noticeable in the inclusion of the said essential qualification for the post of Special Education Teacher. In the present O.A. the applicant has not challenged the legality and validity of the notification dated 7.10.2011 (ibid) and the letter dated 29.2.2012 (ibid). The Advertisement No. 01/14, Post Code 146/14, issued by the DSSSB, being in conformity with the notification dated 7.10.2011 (ibid), the letter dated 29.2.2012 (ibid), and the Directorate of Educations letter dated 15.10.2012 issued to the DSSSB, remains unassailable. The statements made by the Rehabilitation Council of India in its counter reply about the applicants eligibility, and the need for relaxation of the essential qualification of CTET as a one time measure to fill up the vacancies, besides being out of context and irrelevant, cannot make the applicant eligible to be considered for selection and appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher pursuant to the Advertisement No.01/14, Post Code 146/14, nor can the same wipe out the essential qualification of CTET from the Advertisement No.01/14, Post Code 146/14, pursuant to which there must have been substantial progress in the selection process by now. Thus, the said statements of the Rehabilitation Council of India are of no help to the applicant. As the applicant did not possess the essential qualification of CTET conducted by the CBSE, she was ineligible to make application in response to the Advertisement No.01/14, Post Code 146/14. Therefore, her prayer for issuing a direction to the respondents to allow her to appear in the examination for the post of Special Education Teacher is without any substance.
8. In Ruchika Arora and others v. Union of India and others (supra), the petitioners were candidates for the post of Special Education Teacher. In the said case, the Honble High Court categorically viewed that once the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility condition mentioned in the Advertisement, they could not have been considered eligible for the post in question. In paragraphs 2,3,4,6,7,9 and 10 of the judgment, the Honble Court held thus:
2. Applicants, as per the advertisement under 1/13 (which is filed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) for appointment as a Special Education Teacher in Directorate of Education, besides having the qualification of being a graduate with B. Ed (Special Education), must also have passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by CBSE. Petitioners are the aspirants for the advertised posts.
3. The requirement of teachers, holding the other qualification, of clearing the CTET Test conducted by CBSE, was as to bring about better education standards. Powers were accordingly exercised by the appropriate authority from time to time under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The National Council for Teacher Education vide its circular dated 11.2.2011 has issued the guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Tests under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. CTET examinations are accordingly being conducted for the teachers.
4. Petitioners admittedly do not have the CTET qualification. They have not appeared for the CTET examination, and thus do not have the CTET qualification. The petitioners yet claim that they should be entitled to apply for and seek appointment pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/13 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
5. xx xx xx xx
6. In my opinion, the writ petition is clearly misconceived for the reason that this Court cannot sit in the place of the appropriate authority which decides qualifications for being employed as teachers. In the present case, so far as the employer is concerned, being the National Capital Territory of Delhi, it has quite clearly been prescribed in the advertisement that the Special Education Teachers must have CTET qualification. I do not think that there is any illegality or absurdity in any employer asking that to seek appointment/employment as a teacher, he/she must have CTET qualification, and which qualification was to bring about a higher standard of education. The circular dated 11.1.2012 of the Rehabilitation Council of India does not in any manner support the petitioners case inasmuch as though the qualifications with respect to teachers of different classes have been specified in the said circular (which is filed as Annexure P-7), however, the said circular begins with the expression minimum requirement i.e the requirements as mentioned for appointment as Special Education Teachers must consist of at least those qualifications which are specified in the circular dated 11.1.2012 i.e it does not mean that any employer cannot insist that teachers must have additional CTET qualification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to sit in the examination and seek appointment without CTET qualification is misconceived and rejected.
7. So far as the issue of there not being adequate numbers of Special Education Teachers is concerned, first of all I cannot believe such a self serving averment that there are not enough Special Education Teachers having CTET qualifications because there is no basis on facts and documents to substantiate the same. In my opinion, this is an issue which the appropriate authorities will consider, including the authorities which are seeking employment for the Special Education Teachers. However, Courts cannot interfere in matters, merely on presumptive issues of there not existing adequate number of teachers.
8. xx xx xx xx
9. That takes us to the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that CTET qualifications are only required for teaching languages, social studies, mathematics, science, etc etc and not with respect to Special Education Teachers. For this purpose, the following portion of the notification dated 29.7.2011 issued by the appropriate authority under Section 23(1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is relied upon:-
(IV) For para 5 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
5.(a) Teacher appointed after the date of this notification in certain cases:- Where an appropriate Government or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE(Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).
(b) The minimum qualification norms referred to in this Notification apply to teachers of Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for Physical Education, the minimum qualification norms for Physical Education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulations dated 3rd November, 2001 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable. For teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State Governments and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualifications in respect of such teachers.
10. I am unable to agree with this argument urged on behalf of the petitioners because after the subjects which are stated, there is an expression etc. Also, in the earlier part of the notification with respect to classes VI to VIII (and to which classes petitioners seek appointment as teachers for teaching as per the statement made before me by the counsel for the petitioners) besides other qualifications of graduation and having B.Ed degree, there is a requirement of passing in the Teacher Eligibility Test and which reads as under:-
I. (ii) Class VI-VIII
(a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and I-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc. or B.A. Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND
(b) Pass in Teach Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
11. That takes us to the final argument urged on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have passed subjects which are similar to the CTET qualification, and therefore, the petitioners should be taken as having CTET qualification. Even this argument is misconceived because it is not for this Court to decide what should be the subjects for different courses and how should there be parity between certain courses/subjects, and further as to what should be qualifications which are required before a person is appointed as a teacher in the school. All these are aspects which specialized bodies consider, the legislature thereafter legislates, and the executive which thereafter implements the legislative Acts. This Court as already stated above is ill-equipped to go into these aspects.
9. In Mrs.Bharti Devi Mital @ Bharti Agarwal and another v. GNCT of Delhi and others(supra), the applicants did not possess the essential qualification of CTET. They prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for selection and appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher in the Directorate of Education. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, following the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Ruchika Arora and others v. Union of India and others (supra), dismissed the O.A. filed by the applicants.
10. In the light of above discussions, we hold that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for the reliefs claimed by her. The O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN