Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms.Monika Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 March, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 1206/2011
Date of Reserve: 8th February, 2012
Date of Pronouncement: 28th March, 2012
Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member(A)
1. Ms.Monika Yadav,
D/o Shri Bijender Singh Yadav,
W/o Shri Lokender Kumar
R/o Vill. & P.O.Khaira,
Mohalla Sadhwara, Najafgarh
New Delhi-110043.
2. Ms.Sonika Yadav,
D/o Shri Bijender Singh Yadav,
W/o Shri Jai Prakash
R/o Vill. & P.O.Daulatpur,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. . Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Ajai Kumar)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi.
2. The Director of Education,
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Sectt. Delhi.
3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Through Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Ms.Alka Sharma)
O R D E R
Dr.A.K.Mishra, Member (A):
The two applicants were candidates under OBC category for selection to the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET), 120 vacancies of which were advertised vide Advertisement dated 20-26.02.2010 (Annexure P-II). Out of total vacancies, 55 were earmarked for OBC category. Only 41 candidates securing 100 marks and above in the Main Part-II Examination were recommended by the respondent Selection Board. Aggrieved by this selection, the Applicants No. 1 and 2, who secured 99 and 97 respectively, have filed this OA with a prayer to set aside the result notice annexed at annexure P-I to the extent that their names are not included and to direct the Respondent No.3 to select them and recommend their cases for appointment to the post of PET.
2. The main contention of the applicants is that the respondent-Selection Board has not recommended the candidates to fill up all the 55 vacancies earmarked for OBC candidates. Secondly, some of the candidates having more than 112 marks secured by the last selected candidate under Unreserved category have been included in the OBC, they should have been included in the Unserved category. Thirdly, separate selection and separate recommendation for male and female candidates should have been made but a common list for male and female candidates have been prepared. No attention has been paid to fill up the posts meant for girls school by female teachers.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that there was no segregation of vacancies male and female category-wise at the time of Advertisement. The respondent-authorities are not maintaining separate male and female cadres in respect of teachers belonging to different disciplines such as Drawing Teacher, Music Teacher, Home Science Teacher etc. These teachers belonging to a miscellaneous category and the recruitment rules in their behalf state that all the vacancies are to be filled up 100% by way of direct recruitment. There is no provision for separate recruitment of male and female teachers.
3.1 The applicants knew fully well from the Advertisement that there would not be any separate recruitment for female candidates. If they had any serious objection, they should have been taken up the issue at the stage of Advertisement itself. Now that results had been declared and they failed to qualify on merits the applicants cannot raise this issue as a ground. They have further stated that the separate recruitments of male and female teachers are made only in respect of TGT and PGT teachers where 75% posts are filled up for promotion and 25% posts for direct recruitment and separate cadres maintained.
4. In the impugned result notice, 89 candidates have been declared qualified. Out of which 62 are male and 27 are female. In view of the fact that the Advertisement never specified any reservation for female candidates, it would not be possible at the present stage where 62 male candidates have already been declared as qualified to interfere with the process of selection. The Selection Board had recommended for appointment those OBC candidates who had secured 100 marks and above. Admittedly, the applicants have not secured the marks, which were the determining factor for the purposes of selection and recommendation for appointment.
5. We find that only the respondent-Government has filed counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Selection Board. Admittedly, according to the submissions of the applicants, the position of Applicant No.1 was at Sl.No.245 and that of Applicant No.2 was at Sl.No.290 of the Merit List. No decision can be given without knowing how many candidates scored 99 to 97 marks and what is their inter se position in the Merit List and what was the cut off level adopted to adjudge the suitability of OBC candidates. Therefore, it is not possible for us to decide whether cut off marks of 100 was, in fact, adopted by the Selection Board for recommending the candidates as suitable for appointment or not. Similarly, there is no averment to suggest that the OBC candidates securing more marks than the last selected Unreserved candidates had not availed themselves of any of the facilities such as age relaxation, qualification and cut off marks in Part-I Examination. They can be considered and Unreserved only if no relaxation meant for the OBC candidates was given to them, not otherwise. Neither can any order about the remaining 14 vacancies (55-41) under OBC category for which no recommendation was made by the respondent Selection Board be passed without knowing whether any cut off line was adopted or not while judging the suitability of the candidates.
6. In the circumstances, Respondent No.3 (DSSSB) is directed to examine the two issues noted in the preceding paragraph and finally decide whether more vacancies were available, if some of the OBC category candidates are treated under Unreserved category and secondly in view of the fact that candidates for all 55 vacancies under OBC category-wise not recommended, whether they had decided any cut off marks for adjudging the suitability of OBC category candidates. If so, what was the level of cut off marks? Taking these factors into consideration, they should review the result and pass a speaking order under intimation to the applicants within a period of four weeks. Needless to say that the applicants, if still aggrieved, have the liberty to challenge that order, if so advised.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the OA is disposed of. No costs.
(Dr.A.K.Mishra) (G.George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/