Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Chandan Sharma vs Dsssb on 16 May, 2025
Item No. 84/C-4 1 OA No. 1910/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1910/2024
Reserved on: 07.04.2025
Pronounced on: 16.05.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Chandan Sharma
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Sh. Suresh Sharma
R/o Village + P.O. - Kurasan, P. S. Bhabua,
Distt. Kaimur, Bihar-821101
Mob. No. 9939254418
Post: Special Education Teacher
Post Code: 146/14
Group: B ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092
Email: [email protected]
2. Directorate of Education
The Director of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
Item No. 84/C-4 2 OA No. 1910/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) Set aside the Order dated 05.07.2023, issued by the respondents, whereby the request of the applicant for considering his candidature for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code 146/14) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, was rejected;
(ii) direct the respondents to accept the CTET qualification certificate dated 09.10.2014 and thereafter, consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code- 146/14) in DOE treating the applicant as qualified in terms of the Advertisement No. 01/14.
(iii) consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code 146/14) in DOE and, after such consideration, appoint the applicant on the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code 146/14) in DOE with all the consequential benefits (monetary as well as non-
monetary) thereof including seniority, full back wages/salary, etc.;
(iv) allow the present Original Application with costs in favour of the applicant; and
(v) issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the favour of the applicant." FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant submits that vide Advertisement No. 01/2014 dated 27.01.2014, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) invited applications for Item No. 84/C-4 3 OA No. 1910/2024 appointment, inter alia, on 669 vacancies (UR=242, OBC=237, SC=124, ST=66 & PH =27), for the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code- 146/14) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The closing date of submitting the application was 27.02.2014. The applicant applied for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code-146/14) in Directorate of Education as OBC candidate. On 19.10.2014, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) conducted the written examination for the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code-146/14). The applicant appeared in the said written examination. In July, 2015, the marks of the written examination were declared by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). It is submitted that the applicant obtained 88 marks. It is submitted that the last selected candidate in UR category had obtained 80 marks. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant had obtained more marks than the last selected candidate in UR category. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) also directed the applicant to submit dossier within the prescribed time. The applicant within the stipulated period submitted his dossier in hard copy to the DSSSB's Office. Thereafter, vide Rejection Notice No. 436 dated 03.02.2016, the candidature of the applicant herein was rejected by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for appointment to the post Item No. 84/C-4 4 OA No. 1910/2024 of Special Education Teacher (Post Code 146/14) in the Directorate of Education on ground "Below 60% marks in CTET as UR candidate". It is submitted that the Rejection Notice No. 436 dated 03.02.2016 is illegal as well as unjustified. On 09.10.2014, the applicant had qualified CTET. It may also be noted that closing date of submitting the application as per advertisement, was 27.02.2014 and, therefore, the CTET certificate dated 09.10.2014, is subsequent/after the prescribed/cut-off date.
3. It is stated that vide Order dated 21.08.2019, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W. P. (C) No. 9040 of 2019 titled Praveen Khatri & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. directed the respondents to consider granting relaxation to the candidates seeking appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher in CTET qualification.
4. Thereafter, vide Order dated 06.12.2019, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi granted one time age relaxation of 10 years to the candidates seeking appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher in Directorate of Education. Thereafter, vide Order dated 13.03.2020, the Director of Local Bodies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, granted relaxation of CTET qualification to candidates who have qualified for the post of Special Educator (Primary) as advertised vide post Code:
15/17.
Item No. 84/C-4 5 OA No. 1910/2024
5. Being aggrieved by the Rejection Notice No. 436 dated 03.02.2016, the applicant made several representations including dated 19.10.2020 to the respondents. The said representations were received by the respondents but, no reply to the said representations as well as of dated 19.10.2020 have been received by the applicant till date.
6. It is stated by the applicant that the similar issue was agitated before this Tribunal by the applicants therein in OA No.860/2016, titled Dharmendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., and this Tribunal vide judgment/order dated 17.03.2021 passed in above OA, inter-
alia, directed the respondents to consider the candidature of similarly placed applicants therein for CTET qualification relaxation if the cases of the applicants therein are covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.09.2020 in Praveen Khatri (supra).
7. The applicant earlier filed an Original Application, bearing No. 1360/2023, before this Tribunal and the same was decided vide Order dated 10.05.2023 by this Tribunal directing the respondents therein to decide the pending representation preferred by the applicant as also any further representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a supplementary representation. Thereafter, in purported compliance of the Order dated 10.05.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1360/2023, the respondents have Item No. 84/C-4 6 OA No. 1910/2024 passed the impugned Order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure- A/1), whereby the representation made by the applicant was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved by the decision of respondents, the applicant, through his counsel, served a legal notice dated 11.04.2024 (Annexure A/3) upon the respondents. The said legal notice was received by the respondents but no reply has been received by the applicant till date. Hence, the present O.A. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS
9. The respondent no. 1 has filed counter reply on 31.07.2024 wherein it is stated that DSSSB invited applications for 669 vacancies ( UR - 242, OBC-237, SC-124, ST-66 including PH (OH-l0), PH-VH-14) vide its advertisement 1/14 for the post code 146/14, post of Special Education Teacher in Directorate of Education. The prescribed cut-off date for determining the Eligibility of the candidates was the closing date for receipt of applications for the respective post which was 27.02.2014. As per Recruitment Rules, the essential qualifications for the said post are as under:
"Essential Qualification (1) Graduate with B.Ed., (Special Education) or B.Ed. with two years Diploma in Special Education or Post Graduate Professional Diploma in Special Education OR any other equivalent qualification approved by rehabilitation Council of India, Item No. 84/C-4 7 OA No. 1910/2024 (2) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conduct by CBSE,"
10. The respondents further submit that the applicant applied for the post of Special Education Teacher, in Directorate of Education vide post code No. 146/14, under OBC Category. The written examination for the said post was conducted on 19.10.2014. Admit Card bearing Roll No. 17001062 was issued to the applicant. The applicant secured 88 marks. On the basis of his marks, he was shortlisted for verification/scrutiny of documents. During scrutiny of documents, it was found that the candidate had qualified one of the essential qualifications viz. CTET under OBC category with 83 marks (Certificate dated 02.09.2013) i.e. after availing relaxation of 5% marks available for OBC candidates. In other words, he did not secure minimum qualifying marks (@60% i.e. 90) required for general candidates. It was further found that the petitioner was not belonging to OBC (Delhi) rather he was OBC (Outsiders), as OBC certificate was issued to him from Patna, Bihar. Hence, being outsider, his candidature was treated as UR (General Category) and not as OBC (Delhi). But since the candidate did not qualify CTET Exam under UR category as he had availed relaxation of marks available for reserved category, for qualifying CTET, he was not found eligible under UR category. Hence, his candidature was rejected vide Rejection Notice No. 436 Dated 03.02.2016.
Item No. 84/C-4 8 OA No. 1910/2024
11. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant earlier filed an O.A. no 1360/2023 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.05.2023 directed to decide the representation of candidate and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. Accordingly, in compliance of order/direction dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1360/2023 & M.A. No. 1513/2021 in the matter of Sh. Chandan Sharma Vs GNCTD & Ors., a speaking order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure-A/1) rejecting the request of petitioner was issued by DSSSB.
12. The applicant has filed the present O.A. to set aside the speaking order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure-A/1) and to accept the CTET qualification certificate dated 09.10.2014. There is no record of submission of CTET certificate dated 09.10.2014 in the board. Moreover, the certificate is not valid as it was issued after cut-off date.
13. It is submitted that the candidate was required to have all essential qualifications as on cut-off date i.e. 27.02.2014, whereas, the CTET qualifications which candidate is now referring was acquired on 09.10.2014 much later than cut- off date. In other words, he was not having essential qualifications on the cut-off date. However, the candidate had submitted CTET certificate dated 02.09.2013 during document verification. There is no record of submission of CTET certificate dated 09.10.2014 in office of the Item No. 84/C-4 9 OA No. 1910/2024 respondents. Moreover, the certificate dated 09.10.2014 is issued after cut-off date. Further there are multiple cases wherein CTET after cut-off date has not been accepted by Hon'ble CAT and Hon'ble High Court like O.A. No. 300/2018 titled Himanshu Dabas and Ors. Vs GNCTD and Ors. upheld by Hon'ble HC of Delhi in WP (C) No. 3621/2019 titled Apoorva Dabas and Ors. Vs. GNCTD and Ors., and O.A. No. 661/2016 titled Ram Raj Meena Vs GNCTD and Ors.
14. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondent no. 1, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 22.01.2025, wherein, it is stated that the applicant duly qualified the CTET Examination under the OBC category by availing the permissible 5% relaxation, wherein only 55% marks are required for OBC candidates as per the prevailing norms. It may be noted that the CTET qualification certifies teaching eligibility and is independent of the recruitment criteria under DSSSB. It may be noted that the applicant is considered under the Unreserved (UR) category for DSSSB recruitment due to possessing an OBC certificate issued from outside Delhi, and this does not impact the validity of the CTET qualification obtained under the OBC category. It is further submitted that the claim that a candidate can avail of category-based relaxation only once in their lifetime is arbitrary, without legal basis and ignores the distinction Item No. 84/C-4 10 OA No. 1910/2024 between qualifications and recruitment processes. It is submitted that disqualifying the applicant on the ground that the CTET marks do not meet the UR category threshold, despite the qualification being valid under OBC norms, is legally untenable and tantamount to infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the rejection notice, based on an erroneous and arbitrary interpretation of rules, ought to be set aside, as the applicant fulfils all eligibility criteria for recruitment under the UR category in accordance with the DSSSB's own guidelines. It is submitted that rejection of the candidature of the applicant is arbitrary, contrary to judicial precedents, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that u/s 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the applicant is entitled to relaxation in CTET qualification.
15. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 9040/2019, Praveen Khatri & Ors. Vs. GNCTD, allowed candidates who cleared CTET post the cut-off date but before the conclusion of selection process, to be considered eligible. The applicant's CTET certificate dated 09.10.2014 fulfils this condition and aligns with DSSSB orders granting similar relaxation. Given the acute shortage of Special Education Teachers and the applicant meeting all Item No. 84/C-4 11 OA No. 1910/2024 other qualifications, and therefore, the rejection notice dated 05.07.2023 is unjust and must be set aside.
16. The respondent no. 2 have filed counter reply on 30.09.2024, wherein, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 has been issued by respondent no. 1, i.e. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board (DSSSB) and the role of answering respondent i.e. Directorate of Education starts only after the dossiers are received from DSSSB. It is submitted that the Department of Education/Answering Respondent is the Performa party in the present case. It is worthwhile to mention that the respondent no. 1 i.e. DSSSB issued a rejection notice in respect of applicant and other aspirants with a reason that the candidate had qualified CTET after cut-off date and being aggrieved, the applicant and other aspirants approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to seek the relief of grant of relaxation of qualification, i.e. CTET and filed the following Writ Petitions:
(i) W.P. (C) No. 2530/2022 Titled Lal Bahadur & Ors Vs. DSSSB & Ors.; (ii) W.P. (C) No. 10536/2019 Titled Gulshan Kumar & Anr. Vs. GNCTD & Ors.; (iii) W.P. (C) No. 4214/2022 Titled Dharmendar Kumar & Anr.
Vs. GNCTD & Ors.; and (iv) W.P. (C) 12690/2019 Titled Deepanshi Chauhan & Ors. Vs. GNCTD & Ors.
Item No. 84/C-4 12 OA No. 1910/2024
17. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of all the Writ Petitions vide order dated 15.11.2022 and the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"11. Keeping in view the above facts and the statistics and particularly, the fact that the same Competent Authority had exercised the power of relaxation in the case of MCD, we feel it appropriate that the issue should be examined at the level of the Competent Authority i.e., the Lieutenant Governor.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the factual matrix of each case would be different, they shall independently file a representation before the Lieutenant Governor within a period of two weeks from today.
13. In the representation, petitioner shall make full and complete disclosure of the litigation pertaining to their respective years along with the requisite pleadings as well as the orders passed therein.
15. A copy of the representation be also forwarded to the counsel appearing for the GNCTD. The Government of NCT of Delhi shall expedite the process at their end to facilitate the Competent Authority to take an expeditious decision.
16. It is clarified that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the contention of either party and it will be open to the Competent Authority to consider the representations in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated in this order."
18. The respondents contend that the role of Directorate of Education starts only after the dossiers are received from DSSSB. The Department of Education/Answering Respondent is the Performa party in the present case. They contend that the recruitment process for the post of Special Education Teacher (now TGT Special Education Teacher) under the post code 146/14 has already been concluded. Therefore, in light of the above stated facts and available Item No. 84/C-4 13 OA No. 1910/2024 records, there is no vacancy remaining under post code 146/14 Special Education Teacher.
19. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondent no. 2, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 22.01.2025, wherein, it is mentioned that the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground of qualifying CTET after the cut- off date is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to settled judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 9040/2019 titled Praveen Khatri & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein it was categorically held that candidates, who cleared CTET before the conclusion of the selection process, must be considered for appointment. It may be noted that the Government of NCT of Delhi, vide Order dated 13.03.2020, granted relaxation in CTET qualification for Special Education Teachers, and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the same. It is further submitted that the contention of respondent regarding the conclusion of the recruitment process under post code 146/14 is untenable, as several vacancies remain unfilled, which has been admitted by the respondents in W. P. (C) No. 1200/2016 titled Syed Mehedi Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.. It is submitted that the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands and seeks relief against the impugned rejection notice, Item No. 84/C-4 14 OA No. 1910/2024 which is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice.
20. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.
ANALYSIS
21. The undisputed fact is that the applicant belongs to OBC category, applied for the post of Special Education Teacher advertised by the DSSSB. He appeared in the said examination conducted by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) in July, 2015 and marks of written exam were published by DSSSB. The applicant obtained 88 marks. The last candidate selected under UR category obtained 80 marks. The contention of the applicant is that he secured more marks than last selected candidate; however, he was not selected.
22. This is the second round of litigation. The respondents state that the applicant is not eligible for selection as he did not possess requisite qualification of CTET, in other words, he did not secure minimum 60% qualifying marks, i.e. 90 marks. They further state that the applicant does not belong to OBC category of Delhi. The OBC certificate was obtained from Bihar, Patna. Therefore, he was treated as UR, not OBC candidate. The applicant has submitted CTET certificate dated 19.10.2014. However, the said certificate was held to be invalid as it was issued after the cur-off date. While rejecting Item No. 84/C-4 15 OA No. 1910/2024 the candidature of the applicant on 03.02.2016, it was held by the respondents that the applicant had secured less than 60 marks in CTET as UR candidate. Closing date for submission of application was 27.02.2014. The applicant has produced a certificate of Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) dated 09.10.2014 for which the examination was held on 21.09.2014. It is clear from the above dates that the applicant did not have the CTET qualification at the time of filling up of the application. However, it is apt to mention that vide order dated 05.12.2019 (Annexure-A/9), the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi was pleased to grant one-time age relaxation of ten years, beyond the age limit prescribed in the Directorate of Education for the following posts:-
"ORDER No. F. 209/DDE(IEDSS)/Court File/2016-17/CD No. 043457883/ - In exercise of the Powers conferred by the proviso of article 309 of the Constitution of India read with the Government of India Ministry of Home Affair's notification no. F. 27/59-Him(i) dated the 13 July, 1959, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to grant onetime age relaxation of ten years, beyond the age limit prescribed in the Directorate of Education, Special Education Teacher for (a) Physically handicapped, (b) Speech Impaired (c) Mentally Retarded and
(d) Partially Sighted Group 'B' Post Recruitment Rules, 2010, to male candidates for the post of Special Education Teacher [now revised as Trained Graduate Teacher (Special Education Teacher], in the line of relaxation already provided to females candidates, for the next recruitment to be conducted by the DSSSB.
This shall not be treated as precedent for any future recruitment for this post or any other posts."
Item No. 84/C-4 16 OA No. 1910/2024
23. The relaxation of age and CTET qualification extended in view of order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure-A/10) issued by the Office of the Director of Local Bodies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. For facility of reference, the same reads as under:-
"ORDER In exercise of power to Relax under Clause 5 of Recruitment Regulations for the post of Special Educator (Primary), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2012) (South, East and North Delhi Municipal Corporation), the Hon'ble Lt. Governor is pleased to give one time relaxation of age and CTET qualification to the otherwise qualified candidates who have obtained the CTET qualification after the cut-off date, but before their appointment and age relaxation even if they may have become overage for the post of Special Educator (Primary) as advertised vide Post Code No. 15/17.
Further, grant of age relaxation to the candidates, otherwise eligible, has been considered on the same lines as done by Education Department, GNCTD recently for Special Education Teachers vide order No F.209/DDE(IEDSS)/COURT FILE/2016-17/CD NO. 043457883/9831-37 dated 06.12.2019 (Copy enclosed). This shall not be treated as a precedent for any future recruitment for the post or any other posts."
24. In view of the above position, this Court is of the opinion that the case of applicant needs to be considered by the respondents, if he is otherwise fit and eligible.
25. In view of the above, the present OA is allowed with the following directions:-
i. Impugned order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure-A/1) is quashed and set aside;
Item No. 84/C-4 17 OA No. 1910/2024
ii. The respondents are directed to consider the
candidature of the applicant for the purpose of Special Education Teacher (Post Code No. 146/14) in the Directorate of Education under the respondent no. 2;
iii. The respondents are also directed to accept the CTET qualification certificate dated 09.10.2014 of the applicant for the Post Code 146/14;
iv. The respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and v. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No Order to cost.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/