Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yogesh Sharma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 10 August, 2023
1 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No. 2421/2018 MA No.3555/2019
With
OA No.2300/2019
OA No.2422/2018
OA No.2423/2018
OA No.2551/2018
OA No.3662/2018 MA No.4482/2018
Order reserved on: 21.07.2023
Order pronounced on: 10.08.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
OA No.2421/2018
1. Yogesh Sharma
S/o Sh. Narender Sharma
R/o WZ-634/1-A, 2nd floor, Gali No.2,
Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034.
Aged about 27 years
2. Khushboo Singhal,
D/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singhal,
R/o 178/C, Devli, Near Bus Stand,
New Delhi-110062.
Aged about 25 years
3. Pooja Agria,
D/o Sh. Harish Chander Agria,
R/o B-329, Ayurigyan Nagar,
AIIMS Staff Quarters,
New Delhi-110049.
Aged about 25 years
4. Ramesh
S/o Sh. Khajan Singh
R/o A-2/181, Amar Colony,
East Gokal Pur,
Delhi-110094.
Aged about 26 years
2 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
5. Anshu Gupta,
W/o Sh. Ajay Sangwan,
R/o WZ-1, Om Vihar, Phase-III,
Block-C, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059
Aged about 29 years
6. Asha Yadav
W/o Sh. Parveen Yadav,
R/o H.No.144, Village Daulatpur,
South West Delhi-110043.
Aged about 30 years
7. Anshika,
W/o Sh. Pankaj Bhati,
R/o X-47, Budh Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110086.
Aged about 29 years
8. Sunita Yadav
D/o Sh. Harish Chander Yadav
R/o X-521, Mangol Puri,
New Delhi-110083.
Aged about 27 years
9. Aarti Mishra
D/o Sh. P.K.Mishra,
R/o C-68, Bhagat Singh Park,
Siraspur, Delhi-110042.
Aged about 26 years
10. Gainender
S/o Sh. Lal Singh,
R/o H.No.832, Parwa Pana,
VPO Karla, Delhi-110081
Aged about 31 years
11. Urvi Singh
D/o Sh. U.D.Dhama,
R/o A-31, Main Gali,
Behind Aggarsain Dharamshala,
New Kardampuri, Delhi-110094.
Aged about 26 years
12. Rahul Yadav,
S/o Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/o H.No.06, VPO Khaira,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
Aged about 25 years
3 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
13. Imran Ali,
S/o Sh. Irfan Ali,
R/o 337-A/12, G-Block, Ratiya Marg,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062.
Aged about 28 years
14. Sharat Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Balistar Singh,
R/o D-60, Rajdhani Park,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041.
Aged about 27 years
15. Ravindra Kumar
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Mahto,
R/o 4/29, Saket Block,
Mandawali, Delhi-110092
Aged about 26 years
(Group ‗B')
(Candidates to the post of TGT (Computer Science)
....Applicants
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, ‗A' Wing,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
(GNCT of Delhi),
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
... Respondents
OA No.2300/2019
Ms. Nitasha Yadav,
Aged about 25 years,
D/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Yadav,
C/o Shiv Narayan Yadav,
Near Yadav Chaupal,
4 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
Village Bagdola, Sector-8,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
(Aspirant for the post of TGT (Computer Science)
....Applicant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
1. Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
Players Building, New Delhi.
2. Director,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
Old Secretariat, New Delhi.
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
... Respondents
OA No.2422/2018
1. Seema Devi
W/o Sh. Varun Singh
R/o H.No.1222, Sec-7, Bahadurgarh,
Teh. Garh, Dist. - Jhajjar, Haryana.
Aged about 31 years
2. Pooja
D/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o Gali No.6, West Ram Nagar,
Sonepat, Haryana-131001.
Aged about 27 years
3. Krishan
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh
R/o H.No.528, Gali No.1, Mohan Nagar,
Near New Anaj Mandi, Sonipat, Haryana-131001
Aged about 24 years
5 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
4. Babita Deswal,
D/o Sh. Gaje Singh Deswal,
R/o MCR-13, Gali No.8, Sir Chottu Ram Nagar,
Near Sukhpura Chowk,
Rohtak-124001
Aged about 29 years
5. Somesh
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o Saini Mohalla, Sunaro Wali Bagichi,
Qutubpur, Rewari,
Haryana-123401
Aged about 25 years
6. Punit Kumar
S/o Sh. Ved Prabash
R/o 137/20, Shiv Nagar, Peerwali Gali,
Gali No.2, Panipat,
Haryana-132103
Aged about 28 years
7. Ritu
D/o Sh. Ramphal Singh
R/o R-1/75, Budh Vihar, Phase-1,
Main Kanjhawla Road,
Delhi-110086.
Aged about 27 years
8. Rohit Nehra,
S/o Sh Om Prakash,
R/o C-140, Gali No.3, 28 Feet Road,
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
Aged about 29 years
9. Arvind Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
R/o H.No.72/9, Gali-Mata, Pana - Udyan,
Narela,
Delhi-110040
Aged about 34 years
6 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
10. Aarti
D/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh
R/o H.No.651, Ghevra, Delhi
Aged about 30 years
(Group ‗B')
(Candidates to the post of TGT (Computer Science)
... Applicants
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, ‗A' Wing,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
(GNCT of Delhi),
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
... Respondents
OA No.2423/2018
Ms. Manjesh
D/o Sh. Tikam Singh
R/o B-181, Delhi Administration Flats,
Timarpur, Delhi-110054
Aged about 29 years
(Group ‗B')
(Candidate to the post of TGT (Computer Science)
... Applicant
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, ‗A' Wing,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
7 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
(GNCT of Delhi),
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
... Respondents
OA No.2551/2018
Bharat Yadav
S/o Sh. Rajpal Yadav
R/o H.No.5, Najafgarh Road,
Nangloi, New Delhi-110041
Aged about 30 years
(Group ‗B')
(Candidate to the post of TGT (Computer Science)
... Applicant
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, ‗A' Wing,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
(GNCT of Delhi),
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
... Respondents
OA No.3662/2018
Brijesh Sharma
D/o sh. Jawahar Lal Sharma
R/o H.No.377, Ward No.05, Shyam Colony,
Hodal, Dist. Palwal-121106
8 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
Aged about 28 years
(Group ‗B')
(Candidate to the post of TGT (Computer Science)
... Applicant
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
5th Level, ‗A' Wing,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through its Secretary,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Through its Director,
(GNCT of Delhi),
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
... Respondents
Memo of appearances:
Applicants through Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Mr. Jatin Parashar
Respondents through Mr. Ritank Kumar for Mr. Siddharth
Panda, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma in OAs No.2421/2018,
2300/2019, 2422/2018, 2423/2018
Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Amit Yadav with Ms. Ridhi Dua
and Ms. Monika Bhargava in OA No.2551/2018 and OA
No.3662/2018.
9 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) ―More is lost by indecision than wrong decision.‖
-Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC -
43 BC) As common questions of law and facts are involved in these six Original Applications, with the consent of both the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order. For the sake of brevity, facts from OA No.2421/2018 are extracted hereinbelow:
2. Pursuant to an Advertisement No. 1/14 issued by the DSSSB, Respondent No. 3, the applicants applied for the post of TGT (Computer Science) bearing Post Code 192/2014. They participated in the selection process which was conducted by way of a Competitive Examination and were declared successful on account of their own individual merit. As required, they uploaded their e-dossiers on the relevant portal of DSSSB and subsequent to the preliminary verification of their dossiers by DSSSB, these dossiers, on account of their success in the examination, were sent to the user Department.10 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
2.1 On 13.02.2018, the Directorate of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi issued an appointment letter to the applicants. It is clarified that each applicant was issued an individual letter giving this offer of appointment for the post of TGT (Computer Science). While setting forth various conditions of the appointment, the applicants were directed to appear before the Section Officer establishment, on 21.02.2018 at 9:30 a.m., along with the necessary documents in support of their eligibility. It may be worthwhile to quote the relevant extract from the letter of offer of appointment; an extract from only one such letter is being quoted since the text in all is identical:-
―19. That in case Mr./Mrs./Ms. YOGESH SHARMA (Roll No. 13833887) is willing to accept this offer on the above terms and conditions, he/she should appear in person before the undersigned at Room No. 11B Establishment E-IV Branch. Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054 on 21- Feb-18 at 09:30 A.M along with following documents to enable this office to complete the necessary formalities.
(i) All Educational/Technical Qualification Certificates/ Degrees and Mark Sheets in original as well as one set of photocopy (Self-Attested).
(ii) Non-Creamy Layer status certificate from the competent authority (in case of OBC(Delhi) only) for the current year.
(iii) For current passport size photographs duly self attested.
(iv) Form for acceptance of offer of appointment (Form-1).
(v) Self Declaration (Form-2).
(vi) Marriage Status Declaration (Form-3).
11 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
(vii) Oath of allegiance (Form-4).
(viii) Employer ID Details (Form-5).
(ix) Medical Form (Form-6) (3 sets in ink).
Note:- Candidates are to download all the forms from the department's web-site i.e. http://edudel.nic.in/ available in sub-link ‗Recruitment'. Duly filled forms are to be submitted at the time of verification.‖ 2.2 The grievance of the applicants is that the things remain at a standstill thereafter. They waited for some time but no follow up action on this offer of appointment was visible and nor was the medical form, required to undergo the medical examination which is a pre-requisite to appointment in the Government, ever issued in their favour.
2.3 Aggrieved by such an inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicants have approached this Tribunal in the present Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-
―(a) Hold and declare that the respondents have wrongly withheld the appointments of the applicants to the post of TGT (Computer Science) (Post Code 192/14) and
(b) Direct the respondents to further consider and allow the applicants to join the post of TGT (Computer Science) (Post Code 192/14) for which the offer(s) of appointment have already been issued to them
(c) Accord all consequential benefits including backwages and seniority.
(d) Award costs of the proceedings; and 12 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
(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.‖ 2.4 We notice that there is no adverse order on record, therefore, it can be inferred that the offer of appointment is in a limbo since then, as neither has appointment been given nor rejected.
2.5 Learned counsels for the parties submit that on the first date of hearing in the present OA itself, i.e., 26.06.2018, an Interim Order was issued directing the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the applicants. In view of this status quo order, the respondents are said to have not taken any decision till date.
2.6 Learned counsel for the respondents clarifies that vide Memoranda dated 03.07.2018 and 05.07.2018, the applicants were informed that the Graduation Degrees which they possess are not in accordance with the essential qualification prescribed for the post of TGT (Computer Science), but they could represent their claim by appearing in person in case they possess a higher qualification which could establish their eligibility. 13 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch Pursuant to this communication too, there does not seem to have been any further development.
2.7 Sh. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to the qualifications set forth in the Relevant Rules for the post of TGT (Computer Science) and compares it with the Degrees of the applicants read with the marksheets to establish that the Degree possessed by the applicants is to be treated as equivalent to the Degree required under the Rules. The essential qualification for the post of TGT (Computer Science) as notified is as under:-
―Essential Qualification: Essential: 1. Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University. OR Graduation in computer Science from a recognized University. (Provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject). OR BE/ B. Tech. (Computer Science/Information Technology) from a recognized University. OR Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt of India. Note: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Competent Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified.‖ 2.8 Now the Degree of the applicants is Bachelor of Science in either Applied Physical Science or Physical Science. How they are equivalent or identical is explained by the learned counsel by drawing our attention to a 14 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch document placed at (Annexure A-8) which is a clarification issued by the University of Delhi through its Department of Computer Science to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT, Delhi. The said communication dated 22.03.2018 reads as under:-
―Subject: Equivalence of B.Sc. (G) Computer Science, B.Sc. (G) Applied Physical Sciences and B.Sc. Physical Science Degree of University of Delhi.
Dear Sir, This is to bring to your notice that consequent to the change in nomenclature adopted by the Delhi University, the following courses are equivalent.
B.Sc. (G) Computer Science (Upto 2004) Encl.1(1) B.Sc.(G) Applied Physical (2005-2009) Encl.1(2) Sciences B.Sc. Physical Science (2010-2013) Encl.2 B.Sc. Program Computer (2015 onwards) Encl.3 Science (CBCS) Minutes of relevant Council meetings are enclosed for above mentioned changes.‖
3. Learned counsel argues that without any ambiguity this communication clarifies that probably a confusion and misunderstanding had arisen only on account of change in nomenclature and this communication conclusively establishes that B.Sc. (Computer Science) and B.Sc. Applied Physical Science and B.Sc. Physical Science are to be considered one and the same. In fact, it states that they are identical which is more than just equivalence. To further substantiate this argument, he draws attention to a bulletin 15 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch of information of the University of Delhi which is placed at (Annexure P-5) of the rejoinder affidavit, wherein one of the requirements of the course in M.Sc. (Computer Science) is B.Sc. Applied Physical Science apart from B.Sc. in Computer Science. He argues that this would further establish that Computer Science and Applied Physical Science are one and the same, otherwise why would the University allow Bachelors Degree holders in Applied Physical Science admission in the M.Sc. (Computer Science).
4. Sh. Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contests the Original Applications, specifically the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants trying to draw equivalence and similarity between the Degrees of the applicants to the Degree of B.Sc. (Computer Science). At the outset, he submits that recruitment to a civil post is to be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules carry statutory force, and hence cannot be compromised with. He further submits that even if by any stretch of imagination an equivalence is established, the provision of the Recruitment Rules has to be read in its totality. What is set forth as essential qualification is not only a Bachelors Degree in Computer Application or Computer Science but also a proviso 16 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch that such a Degree would not be enough unless Computer Science as a subject has been studied in all the years as the main subject. He submits that it is not disputed at all that on this parameter, the applicants would fail miserably.
5. Sh. Luthra, strongly contests this. He draws attention to the certificates issued by the respective colleges to the applicants categorically stating that they have studied Computer Science as a main subject in all the three years. He also draws attention to the marksheets of all the applicants placed on record in their B.Sc. Degree Program which contain Computer Science as a subject in all the relevant years of the course.
6. Sh. Sharma distinguishes submitting that these marksheets give a clear indication that Computer Science was only a minor subject in these years and not considered as a main subject. How he distinguishes so is by drawing attention to the maximum marks allotted to each subject, submitting that while other subjects carry maximum of 100 marks, the subject of Computer Science has only 50 marks. Further, he argues that the issue of equivalence and the relevance of one Degree to another is not an issue which falls within the domain of this Tribunal. In fact, it has been consistently held by various Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court that this is an area which is best left to experts; Courts and Tribunals 17 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch should desist from appropriating the role of expert bodies or determine academic matters. He further submits that a fair opportunity was offered to the applicants that they could visit the office of the respondents and submit any other higher Degree to establish their claim but they have not availed this opportunity. He supports his contentions through a number of judgments, the lead one being Lahur Ahmad & Ors. versus Sheik Imtiyaz Ahmad in Civil Appeal No. 11853-11854/2018.
7. The Courts in these judgments have held that determination of the eligibility of an applicant for a job in relation to the qualification he/she possesses, is solely the prerogative of the employer. Besides the academic qualification held, the employer is also entitled to determine whether the person has the necessary aptitude for a particular job and for this it is essential to determine the kind of syllabi and subjects which the person has studied to obtain the Degree on which he is claiming his entitlement. These issues are normally beyond the scope of judicial review, he adds.
8. We are confronted with the number of OAs dealing with an identical issue, i.e., whether Degrees which the applicants claim to be equivalent to the Degree of Bachelor of Computer Science could be considered for appointment to the post of 18 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch TGT (Computer Science). The applicants in these OAs are candidates who have been successful in the selection process conducted through a competitive examination but have been denied appointment pursuant to such a selection on the ground that the degree they hold is not strictly in accordance with the educational qualifications set forth in rules. The OAs before us have issues which are identical, although some facts may be divergent from each other, precisely the Degree each of the applicants' holds. We are adjudicating these OAs by way of a common order, the basic arguments being common, we have taken up O.A. No. 2421/2018, as the lead case for the sake of appreciating the issues at hand and for leading the arguments of the learned counsels. We have done so at the suggestion by the learned counsels for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties confirmed that they have nothing further to add at this stage.
9. ANALYSIS:
9.1 The point of determination to the post of TGT (Computer Science) qualification is as to ―Whether the degree of Applied Physical Science/ Physical Science can be regarded as equivalent qualification under the RRs, i.e. can the said degrees be equated with ―Graduation in Computer science from a recognized university (provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all 19 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch years as main subject) under the relevant Recruitment Rules?
9.2 To adjudicate upon the core issue of equivalence of degree in so far as the post of TGT (Computer Science) is concerned, a reference is drawn to the RR's for the said post, which is being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity:
―Bachelor's degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University OR Graduation in Computer Science from a recognized University (provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject) OR B.E./B.Tech (Computer Science/Information Technology) from a recognized University OR Graduation in any subject and A level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information, Communication & Technology, Govt. of India‖ 9.3 We would examine the aforesaid issue by reproducing the following relevant Rules, Articles and Act(s) thereto.
9.4 The Constitution of India Article 51-A provides for fundamental duties. One of the paramount fundamental duties is enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution of India, which is reproduced as under:
―It shall be the duty of every citizen of India--
(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement;20 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.
Article 51A was not a part of the Constitution of India 1950. It was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, and subsequently amended by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002.‖ 9.5 The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 was enacted by an Act of Parliament with a view to make provisions to establish University Grants Commission (In Short UGC). The preamble of the UGC reads as under:
―Education is the key to development of any society. Role of higher education is crucial for securing right kind of employment and also to pursue further studies in best available world class institutes elsewhere within and outside India. Quality education in general and higher education in particular deserves high priority to enable the young and future generation of students to acquire skill, training and knowledge in order to enhance their thinking, creativity, comprehension and application abilities and prepare them to compete, succeed and excel globally. Sustained initiatives are required to reform the present higher education system for improving and upgrading the academic resources and learning environments by raising the quality of teaching and standards of achievements in learning outcomes across all undergraduate programs in science, humanities, commerce and professional streams of higher education including computer science.‖ 9.6 Section 22 of the said Act relevant for the purpose is reproduced as under:-
―22. Right to confer degrees. --
(1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.21 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ―degree' means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.‖ 9.7 However, the said provision is for the purpose of determining a degree and the validity of the same thereto. As per the UGC public notice No.9-3/2016 (CCP-II) dated 19.07.2016 or equivalence of degrees, it has been highlighted as follows:
―PUBLIC NOTICE ON EQUIVALENCY OF DEGREES‖ The University Grants Commission specifies degrees as defined under section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956. Such degrees can be awarded only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a provincial Act or a State Act or by an Institution Deemed to be University established under section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. Equivalence of degrees, diplomas, certificates etc. are not determined by the UGC. In the case of higher education, equivalence is decided by the University concerned and in cases of employment, promotion etc, equivalence is decided by the employing organization.
The UGC Act, and Rules and website www.uqc.ac.in. Regulations made thereunder are available on UGC.‖ 9.8 All India Council for Technical Education (In Short AICTE) was set up in November 1945 as a national level apex advisory body to conduct a survey on facilities available for technical education and to promote development in the country in guaranteed and integrated manner. The said being a statutory body at national level is under the Department of Higher Education. Later on, in 1987 it was 22 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch given a statutory status by an Act of Parliament. Its objective is ―to plan, formulate and maintain the norms and standards by acting as a statutory authority. To provide quality assurance through accreditation to monitor, evaluate and provide funding for the priority areas, maintaining parity of certification & awards.‖ 9.9 The AICTE, as such, do not give any equivalence. An addendum notification dated 06.10.2021 issued in this regard is reproduced as under:
―F. No. AICTE/ P&AP/ Engg. Discipline/2021.-- In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-Section (i) of Section 23 read with Section 10 (i) and (v) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (52 of 1987), the All India Council for Technical Education issued Gazette Notification on 28 th April, 2017 viz. ―All India Council for Technical Education Regulations (Major / Core Branch of Engineering / Technology and their relevant/ appropriate courses leading to degree in Engineering / Technology), 2017‖ for recruitment to teaching positions.
Keeping in view the contents of the aforesaid Gazette Notification, the difficulty is being faced by various job seekers and Government organizations in taking decision for recruitment of candidates for various posts having qualifications in Engineering and Technology at Degree and PG Level and also the provisions made in the new National Education Policy (NEP)-2020 about multi disciplinarity and flexibility, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid organizations should take into consideration the list of major disciplines of Engineering and Technology and their relevant/ appropriate branches with nomenclatures of UG and PG degrees as notified while deciding the Core branch and Allied branches. The Cases of candidates pertaining to the branches other than those pointed out in the above referred Gazette Notification, may be dealt with by recruiting organizations by convening a meeting of the Committee of Experts to decide the suitability based on the merit of each case(s) and the job requirements of the concerned organization.
Prof. RAJIVE KUMAR, Member Secy.
[ADVT.-III/4/Exty./326/2021-22]‖ 23 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch 9.10 It is quite clear from the above notification dated 06.10.2021 that even DCA as of now does not come under the purview of AICTE and MCA is a post graduate degree programme.
9.11 The National Council for Teacher Education, Act, (In Short NCTE) 1993 No. 73 of 1993 was an enacted as an Act on 29th December, 1993―to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith.‖ 9.12 The Definitions.--In this NCTE Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(l) ―teacher education‖ means programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools, and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education;
(m) ―teacher education qualification‖ means a degree, diploma or certificate in teacher education awarded by a University or examining body in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
24 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch9.13 Further, CHAPTER III, Section 1 provides for the functions of the Council, which reads as under:-
―It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may -
(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof;
(b) make recommendations to the Central and State Government, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education;
(c) co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its
development in the country;
(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions;
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum;
(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualification;
(g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training;
(h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by recognised institutions;
(i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and disseminate the results thereof;
(j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably advise the recognised institution;
(k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions;25 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
(l) formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes;
(m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and.
(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government.‖ 9.14 A Resolution was adopted by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Services Department dated 12.05.2008 in partial modification by Resolution dated 04.10.1996 wherein Govt. of NCT of Delhi had decided to restructure the Delhi Board Services Selection Board (In Short DSSSB). The duties and responsibilities of the Board are as follows:
―3. Duties And Responsibilities of the Board, Chairman, Members, Controller or Examinations and Secretary -
The duties and responsibilities of the Board and its Chairman, Member, Controller of Examinations and Secretary shall be as given below:- A - Board The Board Shall -
i. recommend suitable candidates for appointment in various departments of Government of NCT of Delhi and local bodies/PSUs under the direct recruitment quota to Groups ‗B' and ‗C' categories of posts;
ii. be distinct from the Interview Committees. The Chairman, Members and other temporary Expert Members each may head Interview Committees separately. The Board can constitute such numbers of Interview Committees with such Members/Experts, as deemed fit:
iii. make recommendation(s) of suitable candidate(s) within 180 days from the date of receipt of an indent for the vacant post(s) from the concerned department(s) bodies and PSU(s) of Government of NCT of Delhi. Delay(s) if any, shall be explained alongwith submission of the recommendation(s), giving necessary justification(s);
iv. utilise state of the art techniques including I.T. enabled services for increasing its efficiency, effectiveness and transparency for evaluating candidates as deemed fit. 26 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch v. consider the feasibility of Utilising the services of specialist agencies/human resource agencies available within the Government or from outside for (III) above:
vi. perform any other related task entrusted to it subject to guidelines issued by the Government from time to time for making recommendations of candidates for vacant Group ‗B' and ‗C' categories of posts.
9.15 The DSSSB stand in the present matter is that they do not dispute that the selection of the applicants has been done as per the Advertisement.
9.16 We may highlight that even In Final Result Notice No.134 for the post of TGT Computer Science for the Post code 91 /20 dated 22.04.2022, the stand of DSSSB is quite clear as reflected in point 4, reproduced herein below-
―4. Letters dated 13.12.2021, 24.12.2021 and 03.02.2022 were sent to Dte of Education (User Department) along with the documents uploaded by some shortlisted candidates to clarify if the courses done by such candidates can be treated as valid qualifications for the post of TGT Computer Science. However, no reply has been received from Dte of Education till date of declaration of this result and accordingly based on the merit rankings the shortlisted candidates have been provisionally nominated by DSSSB. The final selection shall be at the sole discretion of the User Department in terms of notified Recruitment Rules for the post as also the UGC Public Notice No F.9-3/2016(CPP-II) dated 19th July, 2016 on Equivalency of Degrees.‖ 9.17 The Central Board of Secondary Education (In Short CBSE) in its modern form is a Board which was reconstituted from time to time. The Board was entrusted with responsibility of advising the administration of Union Territory/States as to the course of instructions and syllabus of Middle School Education to secure coordination among the middle secondary and higher secondary school. The CBSE 27 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch was entrusted with a task of instituting an All India Higher Education, Secondary Examination as a model to various other State Boards to meet the special needs of students and also grant the recognition to the Institutes/Schools. 9.18 The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was enacted in 2009 (In Short RTE Act). Its main features are as follows:-
Free and compulsory education to all children of India in the 6 to 14 age group.
No child shall be held back, expelled or required to pass a board examination until the completion of elementary education. If a child above 6 years of age has not been admitted in any school or could not complete his or her elementary education, then he or she shall be admitted in a class appropriate to his or her age. However, if a case may be where a child is directly admitted in the class appropriate to his or her age, then, in order to be at par with others, he or she shall have a right to receive special training within such time limits as may be prescribed. Provided further that a child so admitted to elementary education shall be entitled to free education till the completion of elementary education even after 14 years.
Proof of age for admission: For the purpose of admission to elementary education, the age of a child shall be determined on the basis of the birth certificate issued in accordance with the Provisions of Birth. Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1856, or on the basis of such other document as may be prescribed.No child shall be denied admission in a school for lack of age proof A child who completes elementary education shall be awarded a certificate.
Call need to be taken for a fixed student-teacher ratio. Twenty-five per cent reservation for economically disadvantaged communities in admission to Class I in all private schools is to be done.
Improvement in the quality of education is important. School teachers will need adequate professional degree within five years or else will lose job.
School infrastructure (where there is a problem) need to be improved in every 3 years, else recognition will be cancelled. Financial burden will be shared between the state and the central government.28 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
9.19 As per the qualification criteria stipulated under RTE Act 2009 or as per the evaluation bye-laws of CBSE ;
―Teacher‖ means ―Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.‖ 9.20 The qualification/recruitment and service rules in respect of Principal/Vice Principal/Teachers and other staff are given in Rule 5 of affiliation of bye-laws, the same is re- reproduced as under:-
―5.1. The minimum qualifications for the teaching staff (including the Principal/Vice Principal/Head of school) should be in accordance with the following:
5.1.1. National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-Primary , Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations as amended and notified from time to time.
5.1.2. Minimum qualifications laid down in the Recruitment Rules for the teachers by the Appropriate Government where the school is situated or the Recruitment Rules for the teachers of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan or Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.
5.1.3. The minimum qualifications of the teachers of subjects introduced by CBSE are given in Appendix-VII.
5.1.4. Where ever need arises, the provisions contained in clause 5.1.2 will prevail over the provisions contained in clause 5.1.3 and the provision contained in clause 5.1.1 will prevail over both 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.
5.2. The schools should devise and follow a well organized system for the recruitment of staff of various categories. The following are the guiding principles in respect of all activities related to the recruitment of staff:29 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
5.2.1. The school shall have well defined recruitment rules for the staff on the lines of the recruitment rules of the Appropriate Government.
5.2.2. Teaching & non-teaching staff should be appointed on pay scales and allowances prescribed by the Appropriate Government.
5.2.3. All selections should be approved by the School Management Committee.
5.2.4. Appointment letters shall be issued to the selected candidates. The appointment letter shall incorporate the Terms & Conditions of the service of employee including the designation, probation, scale of pay and other allowances to which he/she shall be entitled.
5.2.5. Every school should sign a contract of service with every staff member in terms of clause 5.2.4. A copy of this contract should be kept in the service book of the concerned.
5.2.6. The Service records of teaching and non-teaching staffs must be duly maintained and updated. Self attested photocopies of original degree/diploma certificates of teachers may be obtained from the employees and kept in their personal files.
5.2.7. The essential staff/teachers required as per the provisions of these byelaws shall be appointed on full time basis only.
5.3. The school shall define the service rules of teaching & non-teaching staff on the lines of the service rules of the employees of Appropriate Government. The service rules shall be approved by the School Management Committee and the Trust/Society/Company running the school and invariably have specific and well documented provisions in respect of the following:
5.3.1. Appointments 5.3.2. Medical Certificate, Character Certificate, etc. 5.3.3. Probation (Including Extension of Probation) 5.3.4. Confirmation 5.3.5. Termination of Service due to Abolition of Posts, etc. 5.3.6. Age of Retirement 5.3.7. Working Days and Working Hours 5.3.8. Number of Teaching Periods 5.3.9. Maintenance of Record by the Teachers 30 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch 5.3.10. Attendance of Employees 5.3.11. Contributory Provident Fund - Pension Scheme 5.3.12. Representations to the School Management 5.3.13. Permission to add Qualifications 5.3.14. Application for Another Post 5.3.15. Private and other Tuitions 5.3.16. Leave, Grant of Leave 5.3.17. Duties and Code of Conduct for Employees 5.3.18. Service Books 5.3.19. Performance Appraisal Reports 5.3.20. Disciplinary Procedure: Suspension and Reinstatement etc. 5.3.21. Constitution of Disciplinary Committee 5.3.22. Penalties (Minor and Major), Powers of Imposing Penalties and Procedure of Imposing Penalties etc. 5.3.23. Payment of Pay and Allowances on Reinstatement 5.4. The pupil teachers' ratio should not exceed 30:1 in the school. In addition to this there must be 1.5 teachers per section, excluding principal, physical education teacher and counselor, to teach various subjects.‖ 9.21 The qualifications of teaching staff are also clearly mentioned in Appendix-7 of bye-laws of CBSE 2018.
9.22 In compliance of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of GNCTD vs. Sachin Gupta and batch cases, WP (C) No.1520/2012 decided on 07.08.2013, Assistant Director of Education (E-II) issued the corrigendum dated 05.07.2017, which reads as under:
―CORRIGENDUM 31 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch In supersession of previous corrigendum No.DE.3(29)/E-III/DR/10/6178-6189 Dated 30/03/2010, the term ―elective‖ as specified in Recruitment Rules of TGT/TGT(MIL) may be read as under:
―The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RR's for atleast 02 years during the Graduation course. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different universities.‖ The above definition of the term elective shall apply to all orders of promotion and direct recruitment issued by this office from time to time.
This is in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Order dated 07th August 2013 in WPC No.1520/2012, GNCTD versus Sachin Gupta, WPC No.4483/2012 GNCTD & Ors versus Vikram Singh, WPC 2514/2012 GNCTD & Ors versus Snehlata, WPC 4301/2012 GNCTD & Ors versus Nainika, WPC 575/2013 Director of Education and ANR versus Neelam Rana.
This issues with the prior approval of the Competent Authority.
(MANVINDER SINGH) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (E-III)‖ No.DE.3(15)DR/E-III/Elective/2017 Dated: 5-7-17‖ 9.23 The Delhi University (In Short DU) was a Central University founded in 1922 by Act of Central Legislative Assembly and is recognized by an Institute of Eminence (IoE) by UGC.
9.24 For the purpose of the present subject, we take note of the fact that vide communication dated 22.03.2018 issued by Department of Computer Science, University of Delhi which was addressed to the Assistant Director (Education), Directorate of Education, Delhi, few Under-32 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
Graduate Science courses were declared equivalent. The Communication dated 22.03.2018 is reproduced below:-
―Subject: Equivalence of B.Sc.(G) Computer Science, B.Sc.(G) Applied Physical Sciences and B.Sc. Physical Science Degree of University of Delhi Dear Sir, This is to bring to your notice that consequent to the change in nomenclature adopted by the Delhi University, the following courses are equivalent.
B.Sc. (G) Computer Science (Upto 2004) Encl.1(1) B.Sc.(G) Applied Physical (2005-2009) Encl.1(2) Sciences B.Sc. Physical Science (2010-2013) Encl.2 B.Sc. Program Computer (2015 onwards) Encl.3 Science (CBCS) Minutes of relevant Council meetings are enclosed for above mentioned changes.‖ 9.25 The said communication makes it abundantly clear that it is the faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delhi, which is primarily responsible for providing guidelines on restructuring of University under-graduate Science programmes from time to time. Initially the programme of B.Sc. (General) Group-A, B.Sc. (General) Group B and B.Sc.
(General) in Electronics, Computer Science, Industrial Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, Biochemistry and B.Sc. (General) in Environmental Science, Sericulture, Agrochemicals and Pest Control was in place. In July 2005 the Council Branch of Delhi University restructured B.Sc. Programme in Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Applied 33 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch Physical Sciences and Applied Life Sciences. The objectives of the restructured B.Sc. Programme are reproduced below:
―To provide students a broad-based exposure to the critical domains of the sciences i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology in both single science domain and multiple science domain modes;
To provide students adequate background of Mathematical Sciences, and tools and techniques such as Computer Applications, Modern Instrumentation and Electronics, and Analytical Techniques;
To enable students to enhance their technical writing and communication skills To provide students adequate exposure to global and local concerns that explore the many aspects of social relevance in Environmental Science; and To permit students an opportunity to explore the multi- disciplinary in science, particularly in those emerging areas that lie at the intersection(s) of physical, chemical, life and earth sciences including such cutting-edge areas like astrobiology, theoretical biology, geophysics, molecular palaeontology , biogeochemistry etc.‖ 9.26 As per the structure of Examination, every candidate shall be required to take an examination at the end of the I, II, III years respectively as per the scheme of examination.
9.27 Further, it is important to note that the following combination of subjects are available:
―A. Physical Sciences
1. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics
xxx xxx xxx
C. Applied Physical Sciences
1. Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science 34 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
2. Physics, Mathematics and Electronics
3. Chemistry, Industrial Chemistry and Mathophysics
4. Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry and Mathophysics
5. Mathematics, Computer Science and Operational Research
6. Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics‖ 9.28 It is also important to note that the recommendations of the Faculty of Mathematical Sciences made at its meeting held on 16.06.2015 and 03.07.2015 regarding syllabi on the following under-graduate courses/papers under Choice Based Credit System of Department of Computer Science, to be implemented from the academic session 2015-2016, be accepted:
1. B.Sc. (Hons.) Computer Science
2. Computer Science in B.Sc. Programme
3. Computer Applications in B.A. Programme
4. Mathematical Sciences in B.Sc. (Prog.)
5. General Elective for students other than B.Sc.
(Hons./Computer Science 9.29 At this juncture we may also highlight that as per their own showing it is not disputed by the respondents that they have also filed order dated 22.03.2018 as highlighted above.
9.30 In the above rule position and factual scenario, the question remains in the present matter is as to whether what 35 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch would be the stage of determining the issue of equivalence of degree in the matter of recruitment and selection process. In the present factual matrix it is not disputed that the result notice No.208 for TGT Computer Science was issued on 10.11.2017. Annexure-A-5 (Colly.) demonstrates that an offer of appointment was issued.
9.31 It is also not disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit, where it has been contended that:
(i) while offer of appointment have been issued, the candidature of the applicants is still being decided by the Competent Authority.
(ii) The applicants have not made it clear that in which clause of qualification of the RRs of TGT-Computer Science, they possesses the requisite qualification.
(iii) Applicants are not having exact qualification clearly prescribed in the RRs of the TGT-Computer Science.
9.32 At the same time, it is not in dispute that applicants have not possessed the qualification mentioned in the RRs of TGT Computer Science. It is also not disputed in para 4.9 that B.Sc. Applied Physical Science and B.Sc. Physical Science courses of University of Delhi are identical/equivalent as specified by Head of the Department, Department of Computer Science, University of Delhi vide letter no.602 dated 22.03.2018.
9.33 It is also not disputed that the University of Delhi vide letter dated 23.10.2017 addressed to the Central Public 36 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch Information Officer furnished the following relevant information:
―1. In B.Sc. Applied Physical Science with Computer Science, Physics, Computer Science & Mathematics are three subjects (2007-2010).
2. In B.Sc. Applied Physical Science with Computer Science, Physics, Computer Science and Mathematics have equal weightage in the curriculum for all three years. Computer Science can not be considered as main subject in this course (2007-2010).
3. Yes, Computer taught in all three years of the course in B.Sc. Applied Physical Science (2007-2010).
4. Current name of B.Sc. Applied Physical Science is B.Sc. Programme (2017-2018).‖ 9.34 On the one hand, the respondent no.3, stated that the OA is premature as the issue is still being decided by the Competent Authority till date. However, till date the said decision has not been taken by the Competent Authority even though there is final notice to the last advertisement. As a model employer, respondent No.3 is casted with a responsibility as enshrined in the Constitution to sub-serve not only the fundamental duties under Article 51A but also to follow the aims and objectives of RTE Act.
9.35 The Central Government, by means of the notification dated 31st March, 2010 which was published in the Official Gazette dated 5th April, 2010, has authorized the NCTE as the ''academic authority' to prescribe the minimum qualifications which notification is as follows:- 37 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
"NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 31st March, 2010 S.O. 750(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Central Government hereby authorises the National Council for Teacher Education as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher."
9.36 The NCTE, accordingly, issued the notification dated 23rd August, 2010 which was published in the Gazette of India dated 25th August, 2010. The said notification lays down the minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Classes I to VIII in a school referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act, with effect from the date of the notification. However, another notification dated 29th July, 2011 was published in the Gazette India dated 2nd August, 2011. This notification made certain amendments to the notification dated 23rd August, 2010 published in the Gazette of India dated 25th August, 2010. The minimum qualifications prescribed in the Notification after the amendment for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher are as follows:-
1. Minimum Qualifications.-
(i) Classes I-V 38 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002. OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El. Ed.).
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education).
OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII 39 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
(a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-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.EI.Ed) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed. 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 the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. 40 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education.- For the purprose of this Notification, a diploma/degree course in teacher education recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education), a course recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.
3. Training to be undergone.- A person -
(a) with Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification or 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 shall also be eligible for appointment for Class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he/she undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.
(b) with D.Ed. (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo, after appointment, an NCTE recognised 6-month Special Programme in Elementary Education.
4. Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification.- The following categories of teachers appointed for classes 41 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above,
(a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2001, i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in School) Regulation, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation. Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed. qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) or D.Ed. (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognised 6-month special programme on elementary education.
(b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed. qualification who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE;
(c) A teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules.
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 42 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch 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 Regulation 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. 9.37 In this background, the job profile of TGT Computer Science has to be seen which is very also relevant for the said purpose. The TGT has to teach the students primarily for class VI to X. 9.38 As already highlighted above, the qualifications of teaching staff are also clearly mentioned in Appendix-VII of 43 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch bye-laws of CBSE, 2018. The course to be taught by the TGT Computer Science as per Appendix-VII is at A-5, the qualifications for appointment to the post of Teacher provides as follows:
A-5 Course COMPUTER APPLICATIONS Qualification 1. B.Sc. Computer Science/BCA/Bachelor of Information Technology OR Graduate Degree in any subject with Mathematics as a subject and 3 years Diploma in Computer Engineering/IT from an Institution recognized by AICTE/University OR Graduate Degree in any subject with Mathematics as a subject and at least one year Diploma in Computer Applications from an Institution recognized by AICTE/University OR ‗A' level from DOEACC AND
2. Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from an institution recognized by NCTE.
9.40 It is also not a matter of dispute that once the recruiting agency, i.e. DSSSB has performed its duty and responsibility at the behest of user department, i.e. respondent no.3. The letter of offer of appointment has been issued therefore, it casted a fundamental duty upon respondent no.3 to form a Committee for the determination of issue of equivalence before issuing any letter of appointment. 9.41 It is also noticeable that time and again, in subsequent advertisement, as highlighted in final result 44 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch notice No.134 for the purpose of TGT Computer Science post code 192/14 dated 22.04.2022, the stand of DSSSB was quite clear as reflected in point 4, which has already been reproduced herein-above. As can be seen even the letter dated 13.12.2021, 24.12.2021 and 03.02.2021 seeking clarification neither a Committee was formed nor the issue had been decided which not only runs contrary to the addendum notification issued on 06.10.2021 wherein it was clearly spelt out ―keeping in view the contents of the aforesaid Gazette Notification, the difficulty is being faced by various job seekers and Government organizations in taking decision for recruitment of candidates for various posts having qualifications in Engineering and Technology at Degree and PG Level and also the provisions made in the new National Education Policy (NEP)-2020 about multi-disciplinarily and flexibility, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid organizations should take into consideration the list of major disciplines of Engineering and Technology and their relevant/ appropriate branches with nomenclatures of UG and PG degrees as notified while deciding the Core branch and Allied branches. The Cases of candidates pertaining to the branches other than those pointed out in the above referred Gazette Notification, may be dealt with by recruiting organizations by convening a meeting of the Committee of Experts to decide the suitability based on 45 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch the merit of each case(s) and the job requirements of the concerned organization.‖ 9.42 In an article - Individualism, Indecision and Indifference - The Supreme Court and the Popular Will, 1870- 1949 by Edwin Rothman (Marquette Law Review Volume 35 Issue 3 Winter 1951-1952, what has aptly been described in the backdrop of pre-1930 period and post -1930 (depression era) is equally true in this modern era, which reads as under:-
―The fear of all governmental solutions was explicable in the light of the fact that the essence of individualism is antipathy to governmental intervention. But individualism had produced problems and abuses which, it was strongly urged by reformers and radicals, only state in- tervention could remedy.
..........
As a result, although piece-meal governmental intervention was effected from time to time, each extension of such power was undertaken with misgiving. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand how this anomalous situation resulted in indecision.
.......
―Consequently, when adverse judicial rulings were rendered in a time of indecision, they had the effect of making more profound the existing confusion and uncertainty. On the other hand, when rendered during a period of indifference, the decisions were either applauded or disregarded by the people.
(emphasis)‖ 9.43 The indecision cannot be ever said to be correct. This reality has plagued humankind for long time. The indecision is 46 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch based upon an individualistic approach to an issue in hand, which may be contrary to popular will without ever being resolved, would time and again give way to indifference. The role of this Tribunal comes in as Administrative Tribunal comes in attempting to prevent administrative abuse of power and guiding the administrators in interpretation of the Rule position to sub-serve the objective of model welfare employer to dispel the chaos and confusion in the minds of popular will. 9.44 The respondent no.3 cannot take shelter on the ground that the matter was sub-judice and status quo was in operation, thus cannot be a silent spectator. Respondent without deciding the issue and forming the Committee went ahead for future vacancies in the year 2020-2021. Unless and until there had been clarity on the issue of equivalence, there is no justification coming forth for withholding the issue of equivalence till date. We are conscious of the fact that various laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 4 SCC 86, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and or declare the equivalency of a course. 9.45 As already highlighted above, the case laws referred to above though very relevant to the issue can only be looked into if there is no sufficient ground and can be relied upon by 47 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch the respondents only in the event they adhere to their own RR's. In fact, keeping the issue pending for quite long as resulted in not only in an anomalous situation but also has resulted to failure of agencies to carry out the aims and objectives of RTE thereby defeating the very purpose of recruitment/selection process. It is not in dispute that there is an acute shortage of the TGT teachers. Such a callous attitude till date, as already highlighted above, in not deciding the issue and keeping the issue in limbo we must say that the respondent No.3 had failed to adhere to not only the provisions of Constitution but to apply with the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It is not disputed by the respondents that they had already received a clarification, as admitted in their counter affidavit and as already highlighted above, that there was only change in nomenclature of the post. We may also highlight that since the University of Delhi which is an Institute of Excellence has already clarified on the issue and also admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. More importantly, Sub-Rule 5.1.4 of Rule 5 as highlighted above in para 9.20 provides that where ever need arises, the provisions contained in clause 5.1.2 will prevail over the provisions contained in clause 5.1.3 and the provision contained in clause 5.1.1 (that is to say National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for 48 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-Primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations as amended and notified from time to time.) will prevail over both 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. 9.46 Our view is further strengthened by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Goverdhandas Bhanji, 1952 SCR 135, wherein, it is held that an administrative order cannot be construed in the light of the explanation subsequently given by the officer making the order about what he meant or what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
―13. It is next necessary to determine whether the Government of Bombay had the power to cancel a license once issued. That depends on a consideration of the Rules. They are framed under S. 22 (1) (f), (g) and (h) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902. They regulate the "licensing, controlling, keeping and regulation" of places of public amusement in the City of Bombay. Rule 8 applies to any person desirous of "erecting" a cinema building.‖ 9.47 The same was reported in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC
405. In Rashmi Metalliks vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Dev.
Auth., (2013) 10 SCC 95 it was held as under:
―12. So far as the first point is concerned, it needs to be dealt with short shrift for the reason that the Courts below have not thought it relevant for discussion, having, in their wisdom, considered it sufficient to non-suit the Appellant- 49 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch company for its failure on the second count. It has, however, been explained by Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-company that at the material time there was no blacklisting or delisting of the Appellant-company and that in those circumstances it was not relevant to make any disclosure in this regard. The very fact that the Tendering Authority, in terms of its communication dated 22nd July 2013 had not adverted to this ground at all, lends credence to the contention that a valid argument had been proffered had this ground been raised. Regardless of the weight, pithiness or sufficiency of the explanation given by the Appellant-company in this regard, this issue in its entirety has become irrelevant for our cogitation for the reason that it does not feature as a reason for the impugned rejection. This ground should have been articulated at the very inception itself, and now it is not forensically fair or permissible for the Authority or any of the Respondents to adopt this ground for the first time in this second salvo of litigation by way of a side wind. The impugned Judgment is indubitably a cryptic one and does not contain the reasons on which the decision is predicated. Since reasons are not contained in the impugned Judgment itself, it must be set aside on the short ground that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in its earlier decision. The following observations found in the celebrated decision in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 are relevant to this question :
―8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p.18):
―Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow order.‖
13. So far as clause (j) of the detailed notice inviting E-
tender No.01/KMDA/MAT/CE/2013-2014 dated 10.5.2013 emanating from the office of the Chief Engineer is concerned, it seems to us that contrary to the conclusion in 50 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch the impugned judgment, the clause is not an essential element or ingredient or concomitant of the subject NIT. In the course of hearing, the Income Tax Return has been filed by the Appellant-company and scrutinized by us. For the Assessment Year 2011-2012, the gross income of the Appellant- company was Rs.15,34,05,627, although, for the succeeding Assessment Year 2012-2013, the income tax was NIL, but substantial tax had been deposited. We think that the Income Tax Return would have assumed the character of an essential term if one of the qualifications was either the gross income or the net income on which tax was attracted. In many cases this is a salutary stipulation, since it is indicative of the commercial standing and reliability of the tendering entity. This feature being absent, we think that the filing of the latest Income Tax Return was a collateral term, and accordingly the Tendering Authority ought to have brought this discrepancy to the notice of the Appellant- company and if even thereafter no rectification had been carried out, the position may have been appreciably different. It has been asserted on behalf of the Appellant-company, and not denied by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Authority, that the financial bid of the Appellant-company is substantially lower than that of the others, and, therefore, pecuniarily preferable.
14. In this analysis, we find that the Appeal is well founded and is allowed. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside. The disqualification of the Appellant-company on the ground of it having failed to submit its latest Income Tax Return along with its bid is not sufficient reason for disregarding its offer/bid. The Respondents are directed, therefore, to proceed further in the matter on this predication. The parties shall bear their respective costs.‖ 9.48 In the case of GNCT of Delhi vs. Sneh Lata, WPC No.1520/2012 decided on 07.08.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
―38. This takes us to the most crucial question arising in the present petitions: Whether the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 meant that the subject concerned had to be studied in each year of the three years' Graduation course?
39. What is the ethos of the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010?
40. To repeat, corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 prescribes that the expression 'elective subject' occurring in the Recruitment Rules means that 'The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also 51 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch include main subject as practiced in different universities‟. It is clear that the ethos of the prescription contained in the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 that 'the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation‟ is that the candidate should have a deep understanding of the subject in which he is desirous of imparting education to the children.
41. All universities in India do not offer a particular elective subject in all three years' of graduation course as in the case of Nainika, Vikram Singh and Sachin Gupta, where Delhi University did not teach English/Hindi/Economics in all three years of B.A. program/B.Com (H) course (s) conducted by it. If the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 is given a literal interpretation, all such candidates who have studied concerned subject i.e. the subject for which they have applied from the Universities which are not teaching said subject in all three years' of Graduation course offered by them would be rendered ineligible for appointment to the post of T.G.T. despite the fact they have studied the concerned subject in all parts/years in which the subject is taught by the university and have a good understanding thereof. This is absurd. It is a settled legal position that where literal meaning of a statute or rule leads to an absurdity, the principle of literal interpretation need not be followed and recourse should be taken to the purposive and meaningful interpretation to avoid injustice, absurdity and contradiction so that the intent of the purpose of Legislature is given effect to. Therefore, a meaningful and practical interpretation has to be given to the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 and same should be interpreted as follows:
'the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years in which the subject was taught during the Graduation course‟
42. It has also to be kept in mind that whereas the University of Delhi was teaching the concerned subject and was testing the knowledge of the students each year by assigning 100 marks to the paper i.e. three papers were being taught in the three years, as a result of restructuring, the number of papers continued to be three with marks assigned to each paper, being 100, except that now the three papers are taught in only two years. In other words the previous and the current position continues to be practically the same. It hardly matters whether three papers of 100 marks each are taught over three years or three papers of 100 marks each are taught in two years. A ready illustration could be a rational decision taken that unless a student studies History up to a particular level he may not understand the nuances of Political Science and hence a University may decide that the subject of Political Science should be taught after a foundation course in History is taught and this would mean that the subject of Political Science is introduced in the second year of study and continued in the third. The previous position of teaching Political Science in each year with one paper each year having 100 marks is replaced by 52 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch teaching Political Science only in the second and the third year but retaining the three papers each having 100 marks.
43. In view of the aforesaid, respondents Nainika, Vikram Singh and Sachin Gupta who have studied the concerned subject, English/Hindi/Economics (one of the main subjects prescribed for T.G.T.(Social Science), in all the years in which the subject was taught during the graduation courses undertaken by them are eligible to be appointed to the post of T.G.T. (English)/(Hindi)/Social Science.
44. As regards respondent Snehlata, there is a subtle but material difference between the position of respondents Nainika, Vikram Singh and Sachin Gupta and she.
45. Respondent Snehlata had applied for being appointed to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). It is an admitted fact that she has not studied Sanskrit subject in any year of the Graduation course undertaken by her, but has subsequently appeared in an examination conducted by the University and cleared three papers pertaining to Sanskrit subject after studying the same in one year.
46. The corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 prescribes that 'the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different universities‟. We emphasize the word 'studied' occurring in the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010.
Respondent Snehlata who has not studied concerned subject i.e. Sanskrit subject in the graduation course undertaken by her is clearly not eligible for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). After clearing the Graduation course and obtaining a degree what she has done is to have studied some kind of a course designed by the University and has learnt Sanskrit. The degree which she has in Graduation does not pertain to the subject Sanskrit.
47. The controversy pertaining to Neelam Rana is not in the context of what would be an elective subject studied during Graduation. Admittedly Neelam Rana seeks appointment as T.G.T. English, a subject which she never studied in her Graduation course which we find was B.Sc. (Botany) but she fights the battle on the strength of having obtained a Post Graduate Degree in English i.e. M.A.(English).
48. This issue is no longer res integra and stands decided by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2002 (61) DRJ 58 Manju Pal v Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In said case, the appellant who had studied Hindi at Graduate level applied for being appointed to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in the MCD. Despite being successful in the selection process conducted for said purpose, the appellant was not appointed to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher on the ground that she had not studied Hindi at the Higher Secondary Level and is thus not eligible for being appointed to said post. Aggrieved by the 53 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch aforesaid, the appellant had filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of this Court which got dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and held that the appellant is eligible for being appointed to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in MCD as she possessed a higher qualification than the qualification required for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher.
xxx xxx xxx
49. A similar view was taken by a Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported as 186 (2012) DLT 132 Kalpana Pandey v Director of Education & Ors. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of Court in LPA No.640/2010 'Director of Education vs. Kalpana Pandey' decided on September 18, 2012.
50. In view of aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, we hold that respondent Neelam Rana is eligible for being appointed to the post of T.G.T. (English), particularly when the Directorate of Education has placed no material before us to show that the person who has studied English at graduate level would be better equipped to teach English to students vis-à-vis a person who has obtained a Post Ggraduate degree in English language.
51. In view of above discussion, save and except respondent Snehlata, respondents in all other petitions i.e. Sachin Gupta, Nainika, Vikram Singh and Snehlata are held eligible for being appointed to the posts of T.G.T. applied by them.
52. Accordingly W.P.(C) No.1520/2012, W.P.(C) No.4483/2012, W.P.(C) No.4301/2012 and W.P.(C) No.575/2013 are disposed of upholding the claim of the respondents in said writ petitions before the Tribunal as per Original Application with the exception that they shall not be entitled to back wages but would be entitled to all consequential benefits such as seniority as per their merit position in the select panel and notional pay fixation with reference to the date of their joining being treated as the one on which the person immediately junior to them joined duty.‖ 9.49 The present case is not even a case or issue in hand wherein the Court has to interfere with the minimum qualifications prescribed in the RRs. The present case is factually distinct where no decision has been taken till date thereby frustrating the process of recruitment/selection itself. 54 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch It is also noticeable that in the present case there are ample evidence/document(s) on record issued by the University of Delhi and its constituent Colleges that there is a change of nomenclature of degree. The present case is in fact not a case of non-application of mind but even failure to apply its mind. 9.50 We may also highlight that the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, calls for multi-disciplinarily and flexibility which is the fundamental in the field of education. It is also relevant that top companies who recruit graduates from B.Sc. Applied Science which illustratively are Oracle, Adobe, Reliance, Apollo, Genpact, Wifi networks, HP, APAC, ITC Infotech, HCL etc. The stand taken by the respondents that Computer Science is not a main subject either in B.Sc. Applied Physical Science or Physical Science is belied from the very fact that the colleges under the aegis of the University have certified that CS 110 Computer application is a main subject in para-1. Further, it has been certified that students have studied Computer Science as a main subject in all the three years. These facts are not in dispute. It is also important to note that for the purpose of taking admission in M.Sc. Computer Science, B.Sc. Program or B.Sc. Applied Physical Science with Mathematics and Computer Science/B.Sc. (General) Mathematical Sciences, with Maths and Computer Science from University of Delhi or any other 55 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch University whose examination is recognized as equivalent to that of University of Delhi. Furthermore, Any Bachelor's Degree of University of Delhi with at least six papers in Computer Science and two papers in Mathematics under Semester system/at least three papers in Computer Science and one paper in Mathematics under Annual Examination System or any other University whose examination is recognized as equivalent to that of University of Delhi. 9.51 For the sake of clarity, we may discuss the facts of each case in brief:
(i) OA No.2422/2018 - It is noticeable that the applicants in the present OA had graduated in B. Sc. and studied Computer Science in all the three years as a main subject carrying maximum 150 marks. It is also highlighted that different Universities have their different nomenclature even though degree conferred is the same. MD University and Kurukshetra University confer graduation degree in Science with bare nomenclature B.Sc. without any further mention of any specific subject or discipline. It is also seen from the records that various colleges under the aegis of MD University, Rohtak as well as Kurukshetra University, and the certificates at Annexure A-10 colly. indicate that the applicants herein have studied Computer Science as main subject in all the three years. It is also noticeable that 56 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch Department of Computer Science and Applications of Kurukshetra University had also issued a certificate No.CA/18/6465 dated 04.12.2018, which reads as under:
―TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Certified that Ms. Ritu D/O Sh. Ramphal Singh, Regn. No. 08-HGJ-301 has completed B.Sc. Degree with Computer Science as one of the main Subject during the Academic Session 2008-2011.‖
(ii) OA No.2423/2018 - In the present case, perusal of the record shows that the applicant had done M.Sc. (Informatics) and had studied computer science in all the four semesters and thus acquired higher qualification in the stream of Computer Science.
(iii) OA No.2300/2018 - In the instant case applicant is also a candidate from Delhi University and has acquired a Degree in B.Sc. (Physical Science). The claim of the applicant is similar to the applicant in OA No.2421/2018, which is a lead case in the present batch of cases.
(iv) OA No.2551/2018 - It is noticeable that the applicant in the present OA had graduated in B. Sc. from Osmania University, Hyderabad and studied Computer Science in all the three years as a main subject carrying maximum 100 marks in each year. It is also highlighted that different Universities have their different nomenclature even though degree conferred is the same.57 OA No. 2421/2018 and batch
9.52 We, therefore, hold that respondents were wrong in withholding the appointment/joining even though they had issued offer of appointment to the post of TGT Computer Science.
10. CONCLUSION:
10.1 In view of the above analysis, we allow all the OAs.
The respondents are directed to allow the applicants to join as TGT Computer Science post code 192/14 for which they have already been offered the appointment, if otherwise found eligible, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. Cost made easy.
12. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
13. Let a copy of this order be kept in the case file of each OA.
(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar) Member (J) Member (A) ‗SD'