Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Daya Ram vs Gnctd on 13 October, 2023
1 OA No. 337/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No. 337/2022
Order reserved on: 20.09.2023
Order pronounced on: 13.10.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Daya Ram
S/o Sh. Tara Chand
R/o H.No. C-73, Extn. 1-C,
(near Agrasen Dharamshala)
Nangloi, Delhi-110041
Aged about 56 years
(Group 'C')
(Ex SM candidate to the post of Craft Instructor/Computer
Operator & Programming Assistant)
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Institutional Area Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.
3. Directorate of Training & Technical Education,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitampura,
Delhi.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
2 OA No. 337/2022
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) By way of this Original Application (OA), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a) Quash and set aside impugned order dated 16.09.2021 placed at Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2 to the extent they relate to the applicant
b) Direct the respondents to forthwith further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Craft Instructor, Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (post code 115/14)
c) Accord all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits.
d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that 2.1 In response to an advertisement issued by respondents during the year 2014 to fill up 17 posts (UR-6, OBC-04, SC- 03, ST-02, including Ex SM-03, PH (H)-1) of Craft Instructor, Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (Post Code 115/14), the applicant, who belongs to Ex- serviceman category, applied for the said post under Ex SM category.
3 OA No. 337/20222.2 A single tier examination was conducted on 14.07.2019, wherein the applicant participated and was declared successful having scored 76.75 marks. He submitted all the requisite documents in e-dossier as per notice dated 05.07.2021. The final results were declared on 16.09.2021.
2.3 The applicant would contend that to his utter shock and surprise, the respondents vide impugned notice no.1350 dated 16.09.2021 cancelled his candidature on the ground that he did not upload the requisite National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate or 03 years Diploma in the concerned Trade or equivalent from recognised Institute as per Recruitment Rules (RRs). 2.4 On the same day, i.e., on 16.09.2021, the DSSSB issued another notice bearing no.1351, whereby the selection process has been declared to be closed and the unfilled Ex SM vacancies have been returned to the user department for non-availability of Ex SM candidates. 2.5 It is pointed out that the applicant while in Army Service obtained a Diploma in Electronic Engineering Course at Military Colleges of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering, Secundrabad, which is authorized by All India Council for Technical Education, vide letter dated 13.03.2003. He has also qualified Master Tech (Networking) 4 OA No. 337/2022 CL-1 from the said Military college. He has also qualified Tech (Opto-Electronics) CL-1, Tech (Opto-Electronics) CL-II, Tech (Opto-Electronics) CL-III and Tech (Opto Electronics) CL-IV from Electronics & Mechanical Engineering Schol, Vadodara and thus was awarded Certificate in the Trade of Master Tech (Networking) on 31.03.2014 and was further awarded Trade Proficiency Certificate for Ex Servicemen as Master (Technical (NW)-Class-I which is equivalent to civil trade, expert in fault diagnosis and repair of computer hardware/software, networking and software planning. This certificate is treated at par with the certificates issued by National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT)/National Council of Training in Vocational Trades (NCTVT) and for employment purposes by all States and Central Government departments.
2.6 In view of the above qualifications the applicant claims that his qualifications are equivalent to the required qualifications for the post in question and thus his candidature has been wrongly cancelled for want of requisite qualification.
2.7 It has been further pointed out on behalf of the applicant that it is beyond the domain and jurisdiction of a recruiting agency/DSSSB to venture into the qualifications of candidates especially to determined equivalency thereof 5 OA No. 337/2022 and it is only the user department who alone is competent to determine equivalency.
2.8 Now since the DSSSB has rejected the candidature and simultaneously closed the selection process and returned the vacancies to the user department, the applicant, left with no alternative, has filed the instant OA, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued by this Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, thereby refuting the averments made by the applicant in his OA. In the reply filed by respondent no.1 it is submitted that the DSSSB vide its advertisement no.01/14 had advertised 15 vacancies, including 03 for Ex SM, under which category the applicant applied, for the post of Craft Instructor Computer Operator and Programming Assistant under Post Code 115/14 in Directorate of Training & Technical Education.
3.1 The Board has conducted the exam (offline mode) on 14.07.2019 and the applicant appeared in the said exam and secured 76.75 marks under Ex SM category and as such was shortlisted for calling e-dossier for the said post code, for verification of requisite qualification as per RRs of user department.
6 OA No. 337/20223.2 However, during scrutiny of documents, it was found that the applicant did not upload the requisite National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate or 03 Year Diploma in concerned Trade or equivalent from recognized Institute as per RRs of user department. Therefore, a letter dated 12.10.2020 was sent to the user department for clarification regarding qualification and equivalent for the post of Craft Instructor, Computer Operator and Programming Assistant in Directorate of Training & Technical Education, under Post Code 115/14. 3.3 In response to letter dated 12.10.2020, the user department informed vide their letter dated 18.03.2021 to the DSSSB, that the Diploma in Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering and Diploma in Electronics Engineering (Computer) is not eligible for the said post code. 3.4 In view of the above, the candidature of the applicant was rejected vide rejection notice no.1351 dated 16.09.2021. Further, it is submitted that during the recruitment process, 03 vacancies (PH-OH-01 & Ex SM-02) remained unfilled in the PH-OH & Ex SM categories due to unavailability of suitable candidates. Hence, the same were returned to user department as unfilled as no suitable candidate was found in the said categories. 7 OA No. 337/2022 3.5 The recruitment process has already been closed and unfilled vacancies have already been returned to the user department. The waiting panel, which was valid till 11.10.2021, has also expired. The applicant, therefore, has no case and consequently the OA is required to be dismissed.
3.6 The respondent no.2 has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC
343.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings on record. The learned counsel for both the parties were directed to file their written synopsis. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has filed written synopsis whereas learned counsel for the applicant has chosen not to file any written synopsis.
5. Analysis:
5.1 As per Recruitment Rules for the post of Craft Instructor Computer Operator & Programming Assistant advertised by DSSSB under Post Code 115/14, the essential qualifications for eligibility are as follows:
"Educational Qualification Essential:-
(a) 8 OA No. 337/2022
(i) 10th pass with Science and Maths under 10+2 system from a recognized school/board or its equivalent.
(ii) National/State Trade Certificate or National/State Apprenticeship Certificate or equivalent in the trade concerned from recognized institutions.
(iii) Three year practical experience in the field of concerned trade.
OR (B)
(i) 10th pass with Science and Maths under 10+2 system from a recognized school/board or its equivalent.
(ii) Diploma in concerned branch of Engg/Technology from a recognized University/Institute.
(iii) One year practical experience in the field of concerned trade."
5.2 On a plain reading of above RRs, it is to be seen whether diploma acquired by applicant can be equated with National/State Trade Certificate or National/State Apprenticeship Certificate.
5.3 In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Lal, AIR 1994 SC 1409, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"11. In our opinion, these contentions urged on behalf of the State must be accepted. A distinction has to be drawn between a general teacher who has received complete training and is in a position to teach all the subjects and a teacher who has received training in a particular craft and can, therefore, properly teach that particular craft only. Under the relevant rules for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher it is necessary to have BSTC or a training qualification recognised as equivalent to BSTC by the State Government. The BSTC course is a two years' training course wherein the training is given in various subjects. The NTC is granted by the ITI after a course of training in a particular craft. By order dated November 8, 1979, the State Government recognised the NTC given by ITI for teaching vocational subjects in Secondary Schools in certain specified crafts, namely, wood work, tailoring, leather work and spinning & weaving. This recognition is limited to teaching the aforesaid vocational subjects only. In the circular dated August 6, 1984, reference has been made to the order dated December 11, 1974, 9 OA No. 337/2022 whereby certificates of Industrial Examinations of the Rajasthan Government were recognised as equivalent to Arts and Handicraft Examinations of Vidya Bhawan, Udaipur, and it was directed that since the Handicraft Diploma Certificates of Vidya Bhawan have been recognised as equivalent to basic training (BSTC) by the Education Department, the Industrial Examination of the State Government has also been treated as equivalent to BSTC. The said circular does not run counter to the limited nature of recognition granted to NTC by order dated November 8, 1979. This was clarified by circular dated January 7, 1985 wherein it has been stated that the NTC holders have been given recognition to teach industrial subjects in the secondary schools for conferring NTC and that candidates holding NTC are not eligible for the post of teachers in the Panchayat Samities. The last circular dated November 6, 1985 only gives effect to the directions contained in the earlier circular dated January 7, 1985. It would thus appear that limited recognition was given to NTC by order dated November 8, 1979 in the matter of teaching vocational subjects of the certificate and the subsequent circulars dated August 6, 1984, January 7, 1985 and November 6, 1985 do not detract from that position. The circular dated August 6, 1984 cannot be construed as giving a fresh recognition to NTC and, therefore, the question of withdrawal of recognition granted earlier by the subsequent circulars dated January 7, 1985 and November 6, 1985 does not arise. The principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted and the decision of this Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana [(1987) 2 SCC 445 :
(1987) 3 ATC 675] on which reliance has been placed by the High Court, also has no application.
12. In view of the limited recognition that has been granted to NTCs the holders of NTCs cannot claim appointment as general teachers and can only be appointed to the post of craft teachers in the craft for which they hold the NTC. For teaching subjects other than the craft for which they hold the NTC the position of the holder of NTC is no different from that of an untrained teacher. The need for appointment of properly trained teachers has been emphasised by this Court in Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education [(1989) 1 SCC 392 : 1988 Supp 3 SCR 893] wherein it has been observed: (SCC p. 399, para 20) "It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill-trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children."
13. In the context of appointment of primary school teachers this Court in Ram Sukh v. State of Rajasthan [1989 Supp (2) SCC 189 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 962] has laid down: (SCC p. 192, paras 6 and 7) "We are not less sympathetic to the petitioners who are out of job but we cannot forget the welfare of those who are not 10 OA No. 337/2022 before the court. They are the tiny tots who require proper handling by well trained teachers.
The primary school teachers are of utmost importance in developing a child's personality in the formative years. It is not just enough to teach the child alphabets and figures, but much more is required to understand child psychology and aptitudes. They need a different approach altogether. Only trained teachers could lead them properly. The untrained teachers can never be proper substitute to trained teachers."
14. The judgment of the High Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and must be set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioners in High Court is disposed with the direction that the petitioners, as holders of NTC, are eligible for appointment to the post of craft teacher in the craft for which they hold the NTC and they can be appointed as general teacher only after they have secured the prescribed training qualification under the relevant rules.
15. Similarly in the writ petitions that have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioners who hold NTC is that they are eligible for appointment to the post of craft teacher in the craft for which they hold such certificate and they can be appointed as general teachers only after they have secured the prescribed training qualification under the relevant rules." 5.4 In Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. (supra), it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 9 as under:-
"9. The presumption on which the Writ Petition seems to have been presented is on the premise that appellants have been denied promotion on the ground that they possess a two year diploma not three year diploma, by completely ignoring the fact that denial of promotion is on the ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite qualification namely "Diploma in Civil Engineering" and "Diploma in DED"
possessed by them is not as prescribed under the Rules. It is no doubt true that eligibility for promotional post namely Superintendent BR Grade-I is not conditioned by any year wise stipulations vis-a-vis the diploma course. In that view of the matter, prayer of the appellants cannot be granted for the reasons indicated hereinabove and we do not find any fallacy in the reasons assigned by the High Court." 5.5 It is not in dispute that the documents were filed by the applicant, viz. Proficiency Trade Test dated 08.07.2021, Certificate dated 30.12.2021 and notification dated 11 OA No. 337/2022 19.03.1996 along-with letter dated 13.03.2013 and Certificate dated 11.04.2023 filed 15.04.2023 were not filed by the applicant before the closing date, i.e., 27.02.2014 as were not available at that time and obviously not seen during verification. The perusal of the documents would reflect that the same does not per se give equivalency between Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (post advertised) and the qualification of the applicant is Electronics Engineering nor this Tribunal can go into examination of equivalency. The letter dated 19.03.2013 and 11.04.2023 only recognizes the Diploma and the same is to be given effect in recruitment. The DSSSB has not denied the said letter on the ground that the same is not from a recognized Institute but not being equivalent and that too after due date. The course Curriculum of the advertised post Computer Operator and Programming Assistant is different than that of Electronics Mechanic. In support of this, respondent no.2 has also filed the Literature thereof. We find that UGC's letter dated 19.07.2016 provides that the issue of equivalency is to be decided by the employing organization/user department in cases of recruitment. The user department vide letter dated 18.03.2021 has held that the same are not equivalent. There is no challenge to the letter of user department in communications dated 12.10.2020 and 18.03.2021 in present 12 OA No. 337/2022 OA, which have to seen and understood in light of the relief(s) sought.
5.6 We find that no circular/notification has been brought to our notice that respondent i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein, the Diploma or National Trade Certificate has been treated at par.
5.6 We may also examine whether at this stage we can refer the case of the applicant be referred to Expert Committee. However, we found that in present matter no useful purpose will be served in doing so. As already noted, there is no challenge to the Communications dated 12.10.2020 and 18.03.2021 in the present OA. The recruitment process has already been closed and unfilled vacancies have already been returned to the user department. The waiting panel, which was valid till 11.10.2021, has also expired. The applicant has not placed on record his application form along with OA to show on record what documents he had submitted. 5.8 Lastly, We also draw a reference to decision in Secretary, DSSSB vs. Ranbir Gupta decided on 18.01.2022 in LPA No.80/2021, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"11. Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, we are of the view that the impugned order goes beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution or jurisdiction vested by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As to whether, or not, the contempt was made out, depended on the determination of the issue whether there was non-compliance of the direction issued by the Division 13 OA No. 337/2022 Bench while deciding the W.P.(C) 4127/2013 on 22.04.2016. We have already set out hereinabove the relevant extract of the said decision. In the ultimate analysis, the Division Bench left it open to the Government of NCT of Delhi to take its own decisions. There was no direction to the GNCTD to implement the judgement/order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent. In fact, the effect of the directions issued by the Division Bench, particularly in para-10, was to leave it open to the Government to take its own decisions after examining the aspect of equivalence, which the Government has so done.
12. In our view, when the matter was laid before the learned Single Judge in the contempt case, the learned Single Judge was obliged to look at the operative directions issued by the Division Bench, and the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contempt case, was circumscribed by the operative directions passed in the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The learned Single Judge could not have gone beyond those directions, since the jurisdiction being exercised by him was a limited jurisdiction. The purpose of exercise of the said jurisdiction was to secure implementation of the judgement. The learned Single Judge has, in fact, examined the claim of the respondent on merits, which was not permissible."
6. Conclusion:
6.1 In view of the above analysis and discussion, we find that the present OA is devoid of merit. Hence, OA is dismissed.
6.2 All pending MA(s) , if any, are also dismissed.
6.3 No order as to costs.
(Chhabilendra Roul (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) 'SD'