Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Anil Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 23 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2894/2010
New Delhi this the 23rd day of November, 2011.
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Om Kumar,
R/o H.No. 132, Haider Pur,
Delhi-88. . Applicant
(through Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
M/o Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidayala Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Saheed Jeet Marg,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. S. Rajappa, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.05.2010 whereby his candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Hindi) was rejected by the respondents on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under Recruitment Rules (RRs) in that he did not have Hindi as an elective subject at degree level, rather he passed Hindi as a compulsory subject.
2. The short question before us is whether the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under RRs which read as under:-
9(b) as per Recruitment Rules then in force the candidate should have Four years integrated Degree Course of Regional Colleges of Education of NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate or Second Class Bachelors Degree with atleast 50% marks in the concerned subject(s) and in aggregate including elective and Languages in the combination of subjects as under:
For TGT (Hindi)-Hindi as an Elective subject at Degree level.
3. It is the admitted case that the applicant did not have Hindi as an elective subject at degree level.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of applicant should be considered in the context of the judgment dated 15.09.2008 of this Tribunal in the case of Anil Dahiya Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (OA-1054/2008) where this Tribunal taking into account the RRs of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi where there was no differential between elective and compulsory subject allowed a similar application where the applicant therein had passed Hindi only as a compulsory subject. While doing so, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Honble High Court dated 25.07.2008 in the case of Saroj Rana & Anr. Vs. GNCTD & Ors., (CWP No. 2576/2002) which decided the issue after examining the definition given by Delhi Government in their corrigendum dated 13.03.2000.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the case of Smt. Babita Devi Vs. KVS (OA-573/2009) decided on 19.08.2009 to contend that the judgment of the Tribunal in Dahiyas case was distinguished and in a similar case where the candidate had passed English not as an elective but compulsory subject was not considered eligible as per RRs of the respondent Sangathan. The relevant paragraph of the order reads as under:-
12. One more contention raised by the Applicants counsel is that in so far as the definition of elective is concerned what is applicable for the Government of NCT of Delhi, same will also be good for the KVS. The Government of NCT of Delhi decided to define elective in the Cabinet decision No.242 dated 2.5.1997 as under:
While deciding the eligibility of candidates in different subjects at graduation level i.e. Maths, Natural Science, Social Science, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Punjabi and Urdu, Elective subjects as specified in the RRs may be interpreted to mean all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation as the case may be with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject as the case may be. The Elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities. He relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1054/2008 & 41 other OAs decided by a common order dated 15.09.2008 in support of his contention. We have gone through the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1054/2008 & 41 other OAs and note that the Applicants in those OAs possessed BA Pass and did not have any elective subject. Besides, the Cabinet decision of the Government of NCT of Delhi has given a clarification or interpretation of elective which came to the help of the Tribunal and it was observed as:-
We are of the view that once, there is no definition of the word elective in the rules the same can well be clarified by executive instructions. That the Cabinet had taken decision on 2.5.1997 and that a corrigendum dated 14.3.2002 clarifying that the word elective would mean and include all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation, as the case may be, with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject, and the elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities, is not in dispute. Between the present OA and the cited judgment there are 2 clear distinctions namely (i) the Applicant has passed BA with Sanskrit as elective in all 3 years of BA whereas in the referred judgment the Applicants did not have any elective; and (ii) there is no clarification by the executive of the Central Government as that exists for the Government of NCT of Delhi. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1054/2008 & 41 other OAs is clearly and unambiguously distinguishable and thus not applicable for the present OA.
6. The applicant admits that he did not have Hindi as an elective subject for his degree level examination, rather he studied Hindi as a compulsory subject. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the Babita Devis case (supra). Therefore, it is not necessary for us to further elucidate the reason given by this Tribunal to come to the conclusion that any candidate who did not have Hindi as an elective subject at the degree level examination would not be eligible as per the requirement of the RRs. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others, 2008(7) SCC 153 held that if, at the time of initial appointment, a candidate did not possess requisite qualification as per the prescribed rules, his very appointment itself would be a nullity in the eyes of law and no further direction could be given for acquiring the same degree at a later stage.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2330/2010
New Delhi this the day of November, 2011.
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Ms. Nidhi Kalra,
W/o Sh. Parkash Kalra,
R/o H. No. 282 A, Tihar Village,
P.O. Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-18. . Applicant
(through Sh. U. Srivastava, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT Delhi,
New Delhi
2. The Secretary (Services),
Delhi Administration Delhi,
(Services-II Department),
5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi-54.
3. The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi.
4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Through its Chairman,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-32. .. Respondents
(through Mrs. P.K. Gupta, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
The applicant has challenged the vires of the Recruitment Rules (RRs) in respect of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) for Domestic Science. He has made a prayer to set aside the RRs in respect of those teachers to the extent of method of recruitment prescribed in Column-10 which stipulates that vacancies in that regard should be 100% filled up by direct recruitment.
2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the RRs for other subjects provides for 70% of the vacancies being filled up through promotion from Assistant Teachers (Primary) having requisite educational qualification. He has cited the example of TGT, Modern Indian Language (MIL). Column No.11 of the RR for TGT (MIL) (page-89) reads as follows:-
Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment, or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods._______
(i) By promotion from Assistant Teachers of MCD and Directorate of Education-70% failing which by direct Recruitment.
(ii) Lab Assistants of Directorate of Education-5% failing which by Direct Recruitment.
(iii) Direct Recruitment-25% For promotion from Lab Assistant/Assistant Teacher 5 years regular service in the grade is essential. But, there is no such provision for Assistant Teachers for the subject of Domestic Science.
2. The respondents have accepted this position and have stated that the RRs for many subjects including MIL provide for promotion-70% from the cadre of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and 5% from the cadre of Laboratory Assistants and the remaining 25% by direct recruitment. But, the RRs for the post of TGT, Domestic Science stipulate that all the vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment. By way of reason, it is stated that there are only 818 posts for the subject of Domestic Science whereas for other subjects the number is as large as 26000.
3. It is not appreciated how the number of sanctioned posts has become crucial in deciding that all the posts should be filled up by direct recruitment. If a percentage of posts is ear-marked for promotion in other subjects, the same principle could have been extended to the subject of Domestic Science, irrespective of the total number of vacancies.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.1988 which prescribed that all the RRs should be reviewed one in five years. Paragraph-5 of this O.M. reads as follows:-
Review of RRs The recruitment rules should be reviewed once in five years with the view to effecting such changes as are necessary to being them in confirming with the changed position, including additions to or reductions in the strength of the lower and higher levels post. But, no review in respect of the RRs for TGT, Domestic Science has been undertaken.
5. In our opinion, there is no logic in having a separate method of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science, which is not in line with the normal RRs for other subjects. It is a fact that the Assistant Teachers (Primary) including the applicant do not have any promotional prospect in the entire career of their service life and there are no grounds why Assistant Teachers in Domestic Science as a class should be discriminated against and denied promotion which is legitimately available to the Assistant Teachers in other subjects.
6. Therefore, we find merit in this application. It is not possible for us to sustain the provisions relating to method of recruitment for the post of TGT, Domestic Science in the RRs as they are violative of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as we do not find that there is any rational justification to treat the class of Assistant Teachers (Primary), Domestic Science separately from the other Assistant Teachers. Neither is there any justifiable object to be achieved by such classification.
7. We find that the respondents themselves have prescribed that all RRs should be reviewed once in five years. But surprisingly, this instance of invidious discrimination has never been pointed out so far through any exercise of such review. We, therefore, direct the respondents to review the RRs for the post of TGT, Domestic Science forthwith so as to bring them at par with TGTs of other subjects. It is further directed that the review shall be completed within three months and the respondent authority shall take consequent action pursuant to the decision in the review in shortest time feasible.
8. The O.A. is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3104/2010
New Delhi this the day of November, 2011.
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
1. Ms. Jasbir Kaur Anand,
W/o Sh. I.J.S. Anand,
R/o 12/172, Geeta Colony,
New Delhi-31.
2. Sh. Subash,
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o B-49, DCM Colony,
Ibrahim Ext., Delhi-36. .. Applicants
(through Sh. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through the Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary
(Services)
GNCT of Delhi
B Wingh 7th Level,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. Department of Urban Development
Through its Secretary, GNCT of Delhi
C Wingh 9th Level,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
4. The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GNCT of Delhi,
1, Canning Lane, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-2. . Respondents
(through Sh. Vijay Pandita, Advocae)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
The applicants are seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their absorption in DASS (Grade-III) cadre, a facility which has already been given to other Junior Data Entry Operators/Enumerators who were appointed under Urban Basic Programme by the Urban Development Department of Delhi Government. It is their contention that their counter-parts who were retained by the Urban Development Department have been absorbed in the Grade-III DASS cadre but others including the applicants who were deployed in the Department of Social Welfare have been left out even in spite of the fact that they were the appointees of Urban Development Department. Their grievance is that they have been unfairly discriminated and those who were junior to them as Data Entry Operator have already got the benefit of absorption into the regular cadre of DASS Grade-III. Their apprehension is that those who have been absorbed earlier in point of time in a pick and choose manner will steal a march over them in the matter of seniority. Therefore, they have made a prayer that their inter-se seniority as Data Entry Operator/Enumerator should be maintained and they should be given all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel also submits that representations were made by the applicants to the respondent authorities pointing out the discrimination which has been meted out to them. He also submitted that the respondent government has, in the meantime, initiated action inviting unconditional willingness of the applicants for their absorption in DASS cadre. But, from the option form prescribed it is apprehended by the applicants that they would lose their inter-se seniority.
3. Since the process for absorption of the applicants into the DASS cadre has already been initiated, the relief sought by the applicants for a direction in that regard has become infructuous. It was stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter of seniority in the DASS cadre would be taken up separately and it is pre-mature to agitate that issue before the Tribunal now.
4. It is for the applicants to give their option in any manner they want; that is not a subject matter of this OA. However, since the respondents have not taken any decision on their representations for maintaining their inter-se seniority while absorbing them into the DASS cadre, the O.A. is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider their representations and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The present O.A. may also be taken up as a supplementary representation of the applicant. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/