Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ganga Shai Meena vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 February, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.1974 of 2009
New Delhi this the 26th day of February, 2010
Honble Shri N.D.Dayal, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Santosh Kumar Meena,
S/o Shri Asharam Meena,
R/o Village-Khedla-Ki-Jhopdi,
Post-Nimoda Station, Tehsil- Saportra,
District-Karoli,
Rajasthan-3222022.
Sushila Meena,
D/o Shri Ratti Ram Meena,
House No.A-262, Railway Towar Colony,
Jind Junction, Jind,
Haryana-126 102,
Anuj Kumar,
S/o Shri Chandgi Ram,
Village + Post Office-Bhungara Ahir,
Tehsil- Mundawar, District-Alwar,
Rajasthan-301427
Ran Singh,
S/o Shri Shiv Singh,
R/o Village+Post-Chilachond,
Tehsil- Bari District-Dholpur,
Rajasthan-328 031
Saroj Dagar,
W/o Shri Shiv Singh Dagar,
R/o B-20/5,Vishawakarma Colony,
Pul Pheladpur,
New Delhi-110044
Ganga Shai Meena,
S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Meena,
R/o Village Rajpura,
Post-Nimoda Station, Tehsil & Distt: Dausa,
Post-Nangal, Rajawatan,
Rajasthan-303505
.... Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Narvadeshwar Pandey)
VERSUS
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Secretary,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board,
F-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110032
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Kusum Sharma for R-2 and Sh.Vijay Pandita for R- 1 &3)
O R D E R
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) The dispute between the parties relates to selection of Applicants No.1 to 6 to the posts of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi pursuant to an advertisement that appeared in the Employment Newspaper dated September,2007.
2. The last date for receipt of application was 29.10.2007. The essential qualification and other qualifications for appointment to the said post are as under:-
1. Senior Secondary/10+2 or intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized board;
2. Two years diploma certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EL.Ed. from a recognized Institution.
3. Must have passed Hindi as a subject at secondary level.
3. The applicant had already appeared in the ET examination but was awaiting result thereof on the cut-off date being 29.10.2007. In the relevant column of the application forms pertaining to ETE, they have stated to have passed the said examination but did not indicate the marks obtained. The applications of the applicants were duly processed and they were ultimately selected and appointed to the said post. However, the deficiency in possession of requisite qualification of the ET examination as on cut-off date escaped detection at the hands of the respondents as by the time of verification of the documents, the result of ETE came out enabling the applicants to furnish ETE Certificates for verification of the respondents. The applicants have thus been working in various MCD private Schools in the private jobs till issuance of the impugned show cause notice calling upon them to explain as to why their appointments be not cancelled on account of being not in possession of requisite qualification on cut off date.
4. The principal contentions put forth by the applicants are two in number. Firstly, there has been no lapse on the part of the applicants in furnishing the full details of qualifications and any mistake in the matter on the part of the respondents is not attributable to the applicant herein. Secondly, they have been satisfactorily working at the present post and during the intervening period they have declined many other opportunities that came in their way and if now their appointments to the post of Teacher (Primary) of the respondents School are cancelled, they would be left in lurch for no fault of their own.
5. In reply to it, the respondents stand is that the appointments of the applicants have not been in accordance with the Recruitment Rules as the applicants did not possess the prescribed qualification on the relevant date being 29.10.2007 which was cut-off date for receipt of applications and as such the appointments are void ab initio and the applicants cannot be said to have acquired any justiciable right on account of these appointments contrary to in the rules.
6. The issue at hand is no longer res-integra as it has already been judiciously well settled. In Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar (JT 1997 (4) SC 99) and Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan (JT 1993 (1) SC 220) it has been held that the qualifications which have to be considered are those possessed as on the last date of filing applications. One who does not possess the requisite qualifications at the material time, is not entitled to be selected. These cases were relied on and followed in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Anurag Srivastava & Others (JT 1998 (9) SC 190) wherein it has been held that the candidates having no requisite qualification on the last date of filing application but were having on the date of selection, were not entitled to be selected for the reason of not possessing the requisite qualification on the date of filing application.
7. The principle governing the issue under consideration has been very aptly enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in the following words in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (1998 (1) All India Services Law Journal 56:
A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.
8. As the applicants were well aware of the educational requirements as well as the fact that they did not possess the same at the time of submission of applications, one cannot take too sympathetic view of the situation in which the applicants find themselves. In these premises, the applicants were not eligible for consideration at the time of their selection. We, therefore, dismiss this application. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (N.D.Dayal)
Member (J) Member (A)
/usha/