Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Chandra Shekhar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 February, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-421/2011
Reserved on : 27.01.2012.
Pronounced on: 01.02.2012.
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Chandra Shekhar,
S/o Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o B-624, MIG Flats (DDA),
Chitrakoot, East of Loni Road,
Delhi-93. . Applicant
(through Sh. Devendra Singh with Sh. Ghanshyam, Advocate)
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi.
2. Prem lata Kataria,
Director Education (Primary),
Deptt. of Education HQs.,
Civic Centre, 15th Floor,
S.P. Mukherjee Marg (Minto Road),
New Delhi-2.
3. The Director Education (Primary),
Directorate of Education,
Delhi Administration, Old Secretariat,
Civil Lines, Delhi-53.
4. The O.S. (Vigilance),
Office of Deputy Director of Education,
(Distt. North-East), B-Block,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-93.
5. The Education Officer,
Office of the Education Officer,
Zone-IV, (Distt. North-East)
B-Block, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-93.
6. The Dy. Education Officer,
Office of the Education Officer,
Zone-IV, (Distt. North-East),
B-Block, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-93.
7. The Education Officer,
Office of the Education Officer,
Zone-VI, (Distt. North-East)
C-Block, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-93. . Respondents
(through Sh. Umesh Joshi with Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicant was an O.B.C. candidate for appointment to the post of Primary school teacher for which advertisement was issued on 25/26.07.1996. He was selected on merit, but disqualified on the ground that he was over-aged by 30 days, though there was provision for relaxation of age limit for prior teaching experience in recognized schools. The grievance of the applicant flowed from the fact the experience certificates submitted by him from recognized schools were not taken into account. He filed WP(C) No. 1619/98, renumbered as TA-438/2009 on transfer, in which the following directions were given:
8. We have given the above direction because initially applicant No.2 was also denied appointment on the ground that he had not applied through proper channel as such was not entitled to age relaxation but during the pendency of the petition, he was given appointment. Respondents have not explained how he was given the appointment, therefore, this aspect also needs to be dealt with by the respondents. We would like to clarify that applicant would not be entitled to any back wages even if he gets appointment now because the earlier report of Education Officer was against the applicant, therefore, respondents had rightly denied the appointment to the applicant. After verification of the certificates, and holding that there were doubts about genuineness of certificate furnished, the respondent authority rejected the candidature of the applicant who filed Contempt Petition No. 655/2010 which was dismissed with the following observations:-
4. We do not think this can be termed as a contempt of court because the respondents have passed the order dated 21.10.2009 after verifying the position from the DEO, Zone-IV of Govt. of NCT of Delhi is issuing contradictory letters one after another, the remedy with the applicant is to challenge the order of respondents dated 21.10.2009 by impleading Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi and also DEO, Zone-IV as a necessary party so that Directorate of Education may give a definite reply on the status of teaching experience of the applicant along with supporting documents whether they are genuine or not genuine. Giving liberty to the applicant as aforesaid, this contempt petition is closed and notices are discharged. Hence this O.A., in which the letter dated 21.10.2009 of the Director, Education has been assailed as proceeding without proper application of mind to the facts of the case.
2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant had filed the following certificates about his prior teaching experience:-
Sl.No. Name of School/Zone Date of issue of teaching experience certificate Date of countersign by authority DEO/DE Duration of teaching experience.
1. Vishwa Bharti Public School/Zone IV 19.07.1993 _____________ 13.06.1994 20.07.1993 _____________ 14.06.1994 01.07.1985 to 30.06.1986 (1year) _____________ 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1993 (5 years)
2. Nity Public School/Zone IV 15.07.1996 15.07.1996 01.04.1993 to 30.08.1994 (1 year 5 months)
3. Sidhharth International Public School/Zone VI 13.07.1996 15.07.1996 01.09.1994 to date of submission of application (1 year 11 months) There was no dispute about the certificates issued by the latter two schools; only the management of Vishwa Bharti School failed to produce the records. The certificates had been duly counter signed by the then Deputy Education Officer. Even if, for arguments sake, the certificate of Viswa Bharti School is discarded, the applicant was entitled to the relaxation on the basis of the certificates of the other two schools. As regards the erroneous remarks appearing in the report of 29.08.2009 of the Deputy Education Officer, the position was clarified in the corrigendum issued on 24.09.2009 in the following manner:-
In partial modification of this office letter No.52/DDE/NE/E.O/Z-IV/2009/821 dated 29.08.2009 on the above cited subject the experience certificate of Sh. Chandra Shekhar S/o late Chet Ram, TGT maths issued by the school management Vishwa Bharti, Ganga Vihar may be read as 01/07/85 to 30/06/86 and from 01/04/88 to 31/03/93 as per certificate enclosed duly signed & verified by Manager and BM of Vishwa Bharti Public School.
The experience certificate of Sh. Chander Shekhar s/O Late Sh. Chet Ram, TGT (Maths) in Nity Public School Sabha Pur Delhi for the period 01/04/93 to 30/08/94 have also been enclosed duly signed & verified by Manager and HM of Nity Public School.
The above experience certificate of Sh. Chander Shekhar S/O Sh. Chet Ram of both the schools are hereby forwarded for necessary action. In view of this clarification there was no further room for doubt and the respondents have unfairly rejected the candidature in a mechanical manner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a Committee was constituted to verify the certificates of experience filed by the applicant. Even in spite of issue of repeated notices to Viswa Bharti School to produce staff attendance Register, aquittance Rolls of the staff, muster rolls, service book and other relevant records, the school failed to produce these records even on threat of de-recognition on the ground that the records were no longer available with them. Therefore, the Committee concluded that there was no authentic record to substantiate the claim of teaching experience of the applicant in that school. Since there was a doubt about the genuineness of the certificate, the candidature was rejected.
4. Let us examine the finding of the Committee as reported by the DEO, Zone-IV on 26.08.2011 (page-151):-
Vide their report dated 17/03/2011, placed at page No.113/C-115/C, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report with following conclusions:-
(i) The Experience Certificates and working period of Sh. Chandra Shekhar in r/o Siddharth International Public School is undisputed and further countersigned by the Zonal Officer is found to be genuine.
(ii) As per available record the Photo Copy of the attendance register of Niti Public School shows that the teacher worked with the school w.e.f. 01/04/1993 to 30/08/1994 while the Photo copy of the quittance roll shows the payment of salary w.e.f. April 1993 to May 1994. On the basis of available record it is determined that the experience Certificate issued to him is found to be genuine and his working period is to be 01/04/1993 to 30/08/1994.
(iii) The genuineness of the experience certificate issued by Vishwa Bharti Public School, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-94 w.e.f. 01/07/1985-30/06/1986 and further 01/04/1988 to 31/03/1993, cannot be verified, as the school authority is not providing any record despite our best efforts and repeated requests. The reply of Vishwa Bharti School of 28.02.2011 although expresses its inability to produce the records called for due to unavailability, yet confirms the working of the applicant by stating:-
3. That Sh. Chandra Shekhar S/o Sh. Chet Ram R/o Village Gopal Pur, P.C.Jahangirpuri, Delhi worked in this school from 1.7.1985 to 30.6.1986 and from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1993.
Submitted for information.
5. From the foregoing discussions, the conclusion is irresistible that the teaching experience of the applicant in respect of latter two schools have been verified by the Committee as correct. As regards Vishwa Bharti School, though the school authorities could not produce the records due to non-availability, yet they do not deny the claim of the applicant. Therefore, there is no accusation of submitting false certificate against the applicant. As the learned counsel for applicant contends, even if the period relating to Vishwa Bharti school is excluded, the applicant still is entitled to the benefit of relaxation. We would agree with this contention. The respondents are directed to consider the teaching experience of the applicant in Nity Public School, Zone-IV and Sidharth International Public School, Zone-VI and decide within a month about his entitlement to prescribed relaxation in age and appoint him on the post of Primary school teacher if he was other wise eligible and entitled to age relaxation. Learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the order of 20.05.2009 of this Tribunal in TA-438/2009 about payment of back-wages. We do not have reason to hold a different view on the subject.
6. The O.A. is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/