Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashima Goswami vs Govt. Of Nctd on 21 December, 2023
1
Item No. 50/C-3 OA 1786/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 1786/2019
This the 21st day of December, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Ashima Goswami (Aged about 25 years)
D/o Sh. Praveen Goswami R/o 13 Gulmohar Vatika
Khandari Bye-Pass Crossing, Agra (UP)
Post Code: 89/17 (Female)
Assistant Teacher Primary
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. R.K. Shukla)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary, A-Wing,
5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Union of India through its Secretary
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman, FC-18, Karkardooma
Institutional Area, Delhi-92
4. The Director of Education,
Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054
5. Central Board of Secondary Education
Through its Chairperson,
'Shiksha Kendra', 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, New Delhi 110092
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Alok Kumar for Mr. Anil Srivastava,
Mr. Ritank Kumar, Mr. Pramendra Singh for Mr. Amit
Yadav)
2
Item No. 50/C-3 OA 1786/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) The applicant, herein, aspired to the post of Primary Teacher, MCD. She is aggrieved that her candidature has not been accepted on the ground that she could not submit the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) Certificate within the cut-off date prescribed for the same. By virtue of the present OA, she seeks the following reliefs:-
"a) Direct the respondents to exempt the applicant to produce the certificate of CTET by 31.1.2018 till 3.1.2019 as the applicant obtained СТЕТ qualification on 4.1.2019 accordingly the appropriate directions should be given to the respondents DSSSB to consider the candidature of the applicant and to issue an offer of appointment as a Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Female) in Delhi Administration alongwith others; and result may be ordered to be declared.
b) Direct the respondents to give relaxation to the applicant to submit CTET certificate before 3.1.2019 and they may be directed necessary orders accordingly. to pass
c) Declare the act of the respondents No. 5 (CBSE) in not conducting examination periodically in the year 2016 and 2017 is illegal and arbitrary.
d) Pass any such other and further order in respect of issuance of offer of appointment under the facts and circumstances of the case even after late submission of CTET certificate."
2. When this matter was heard at length on 06.11.2023, Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 had prayed for outright dismissal of the OA in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 11328/2017. He had highlighted that the issue with 3 Item No. 50/C-3 OA 1786/2019 respect to the relaxation in the criteria in CTET regarding the time prescribed has drawn the attention to the judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned Writ and the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the petition holding that since the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification on the cut-off date, no relaxation could be given.
3. Mr. Ritank Kumar, learned counsel, who represented Respondents No. 1 and 3 had drawn our attention to OA No. 3666/2018, submitting that the subject and the issue of the said OA is closely similar to the present one and hence, on the same analogy, the relief being sought does not deserve to be extended in favour of the applicant.
4. Against this background, learned counsel for the applicant had sought some time to draw the distinction between these OAs as also the judgment of Hon'ble High Court. The only difference he has been able to point out is the year and the date of advertisement and none else.
5. We are of the view that the subject and the contents OA No. 3666/2018 are strikingly similar to the present OA and the issue at stake herein stands adjudicated. To 4 Item No. 50/C-3 OA 1786/2019 elaborate, we are reproducing the order dated 13.04.2023 in the aforesaid OA below:-
"The applicants seek the following relief in the present OA:-
"(i) Set aside the impugned Advertisement No. 01/18 dated 26.06.2018 to the extent it fails to grant the one time relaxation to the applicants herein who are seeking appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 1/18).
(ii) Declare that the impugned action on the part of the respondents in not relaxing the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 1/18) notified vide Advertisement No. 01/18 dated 26.06.2018) by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) in case of the applicants, is illegal as well as unjustified;
(iii) direct the respondents to consider, and grant, relaxation in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD (Post code 1/18) notified vide Advertisement No.01/18 dated 26.06.2018 by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) in case of the applicants;
(iv) direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicants for appointment on the aforesaid posts treating the applicants to be qualified for the aforesaid posts;
2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) usually conducts the CTET examination twice every year. It is submitted that CBSE has last conducted CTET examination in September, 2016 and since then no CTET examination has been conducted. It is submitted that the applicants have been deprived of their right to appear in the CTET examination. It is, therefore, submitted that at least two chances/opportunities to appear in CTET examination should be given to the applicants after submitting their application forms for appointment to the aforesaid post in terms of advertisement No.01/18 dated 26.06.2018. It is stated that the applicants are entitled for grant of relaxation in CTET qualification for the post of Teacher (Primary), MCD (Post Code 1/18) in terms of Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Reference has been drawn to Section 23 of the said Act, 2009, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"23. Qualification for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers- (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a Teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub- section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deem necessary, by notification, relax the 5 Item No. 50/C-3 OA 1786/2019 minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section(1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teacher shall be such as may be prescribed".
3. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Neelam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 189/2016, decided on 11.01.2016, held as under:-
"5. The Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the petitioners and quashed Clause 4 of the Guidelines dated 08.11.2010. While disposing of the OA, the following directions have been issued:
"In view of the aforementioned, we set aside Clause 4 of the impugned guidelines issued vide No.1-15/2010- EE-4 dated 08.11.2010. It would be open to the respondents to take up the matter for exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as per procedure laid down in the aforementioned guidelines. The OA stands disposed of."
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied if a time limit is fixed to enable the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as per procedure laid down in the Guidelines.
7. Counsel for the respondents entered appearance on an advance copy.
8. We find the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner to be fair and just. Accordingly, we direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to comply with the order dated 12.02.2015. We also direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties."
4. Learned counsel states that in view of the aforesaid, due to the embargo laid down in Clause 4 of the HRD Ministry Circular dated 08.11.2010 for grant of relaxation in regard to CTET relaxation, GNCTD was disentitled to make such proposal to the Central Govt. However, in view of the Central Administrative Tribunal Order dated 12.02.2015, upheld by Hon'ble High Court in case of Neelam (supra), setting aside Clause 4 of the guidelines dated 08.11.2010, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is now free to make such proposal to Central Government. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleaded to direct the Delhi Govt. to comply with the Order dated 12.02.2015.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicants do not fulfil the eligibility criteria inasmuch as they do not possess the 6 Item No. 50/C-3 OA 1786/2019 requisite qualification as per prescribed under the RRs and, therefore, they are not entitled for any relaxation of any kind.
6. She further quotes the judgment dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.6006/2021, Anuj and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3936 and states that the instant OA is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment on the same issue and that of the same department.
7. After hearing both the learned counsel, we find that the applicants do not fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria and hence, the OA itself lacks merit. Moreover, as the issue is no more res integra, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anuj Kumar and Ors.(supra). The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
14. To our minds, the contention advanced by Ms. Mukherjee, on behalf of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. An essential qualification, qua appointment to a post, cannot be relaxed.
15. The CTET Exam, 2021 may have been postponed due myriad reasons, however, that by itself, cannot be the basis for giving a leg- up to the petitioners.
16. Any which ways, the contention of the petitioners, in our view, is untenable, as clearing CTET is an essential qualification, for sitting for the exam and being considered for appointment to the post of TGT.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application shall stand closed."
In view of above, the OA is dismissed."
6. Since we have given a categorical opinion that the two OAs are identical, we hold that the applicant did not possess the requisite eligibility on the prescribed date and hence, the relief she is seeking in the present OA cannot be extended in her favour.
7Item No. 50/C-3 OA 1786/2019
7. Therefore, the OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/akshaya/