Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramesh Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 29 November, 2022
1
Item No.74 O.A. No.1893/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1893/2019
This the 29th day of November, 2022
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Ramesh Kumar
Age-26 years
Post -TGT (Sanskrit)
Group -B, Appointment
S/o Sh. Ram Khelawan Yadav
R/o Village Kithauli
Post-Shankarpur
Tehsil - Lambhua
District-Sultanpur
UP-222302. ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Sachin Chauhan )
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCTD
A-Wing, 5th Floor
Delhi Secretariat
New Delhi - 110 113.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Secretary
DSSSB, FC-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma
(Near Railway Reservation Centre)
New Delhi - 110 092.
3. Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCTD
Through its Director
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCTD, Old Secretariat
Delhi -110 054. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Koninica Bose for
Mr. Ujjawal K. Jha )
2
Item No.74 O.A. No.1893/2019
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima Gupta , Member (J):
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) To quash and set aside the office order No-
409 dated 23.4.2019 in respect of applicant (sr. No-2) whereby the candidature of the applicant to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) (Post Code-144/17) has been rejected and to further direct the respondents that the applicant be given the appointment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) (Post Code-144/17) in Directorate of Education in present selection process conducted by DSSSB in pursuance of Advt. No.-4/2017 with all consequential benefit including seniority, promotion and pay & allowance.
Or/and
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
2. The facts in the Original Application are that the applicant participated in the selection process advertised by DSSSB vide Advertisement No.04/17 post code 144/17. The result of the applicant was declared and he secured 97.25 marks. Since the applicant was one of the shortlisted candidates, who was directed to upload his e-dossier. However, the applicant‟s candidature was rejected by the 3 Item No.74 O.A. No.1893/2019 respondents vide rejection notice no.409 dated 23.04.2019 for the reason "CTET qualified with 85 marks under relaxed standard i.e. OBC category." The applicant preferred a representation to the respondents against the said rejection order, the same is still pending consideration with the respondents. Hence, the applicant filed the present Original Application.
3. The case of the applicant was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1047/2014 in case of Pradeep & Ors. vs. GNCTD decided on 20.08.2018 wherein the Tribunal quashed the order of respondents (DSSSB) rejecting the candidature of candidates to the post of Special Education Teacher on the same ground as being impugned in present OA i.e. „applied under UR category and passed CTET under OBC category‟ on relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Vikas Sankhala & ors. The operative portion of the order reads as under :-
"7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings. Admittedly, these applicants have acquired CTET qualification as OBC candidates from their respective States and have availed 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in the CTET. Pertinent to mention that 4 Item No.74 O.A. No.1893/2019 CTET qualification is just like any other qualifications e.g. BA, MA, B.Ed. etc. The stand taken by the respondents that CTET from outside in respect of reserved category candidates cannot be accepted for employment in GNCTD is indeed very strange. It cannot be denied that these applicants have acquired the CTET qualification. Hence rejection of the said qualification of the applicants would mean that GNCTD does not recognize the same. It is just like a candidate acquiring an educational certificate/degree from a State Education Board/University with grace marks where there is a provision for grace marks and due to this factor, the authorities in some other States refuse to recognize the said educational certificate/degree since them Education Board/Universities of those States do not allow grace marks.
8. The issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas Sankhala & Ors.(supra). In the said case, some of the reserved category candidates had done fairly well in the written test and thus by virtue of their merit positions, were entitled to be considered as general candidates. In the selection process therein, 80% weightage was given to the performance in the written test and 20% to the performance in CTET. The Hon'ble Apex Court 9 (OA No.1047/2014) has held that the CTET qualification acquired by candidates under the reserved category availing 5% reservation benefit in the qualifying marks were eligible to be considered under the general category. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also rationalized it and observed that by virtue of 20% weightage given to the CTET marks in the final selection, the advantage gained by them by way of availing 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks, has got completely neutralised.
9. In the instant case, we find that is no weightage given to the performance in the CTET. The merit list is prepared entirely on the basis of the performance in the written examination.5 Item No.74 O.A. No.1893/2019
Hence, relying on the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikas Sankhala & Ors. (supra), we hold that since the applicants possess CTET qualification, there is no bar in considering them under the general category for appointment on the basis of their standing in the merit list.
10. In the conspectus of the discussions in the foregoing paras, this OA is allowed. The impugned Annexure A-2 advertisement is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue letters of appointment to the applicants for the post of Special Education Teacher if they are found eligible otherwise in terms of their positions in the merit list. This shall be done within a period of 08 weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. The said order was assailed by the respondents by way of a Writ Petition No.557/2019 titled GNCTD Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. decided on 21.01.2019, which was upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. The respondents further assailed the order passed in Civil Appeal No.8259/2019 before the Hon‟ble Apex Court wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide their order dated 24.10.2019 reversed the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (C) No.557 of 2019. The operative portion of the said order reads as under :-
"27 In view of the forgoing, the High Court and the Tribunal erred in granting relief to the respondents. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.557 of 6 Item No.74 O.A. No.1893/2019 2019 dated 21.1.2019 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs."
5. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the Original Application and submits that since the entire controversy has been heard and decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, nothing sustains in the Original Application, therefore, the same is to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The issue involved in the Original Application is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.557 of 2019 decided on 21.1.2019, therefore, this Original Application is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
( Sanjeeva Kumar ) ( Pratima K Gupta )
Member (A) Member (J)
/uma/