Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashok Kumar Pal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors Through on 19 November, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 4573/2011 New Delhi this the 19th November, 2012 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Ashok Kumar Pal, S/o Sh. Kulfat Pal, Seelam Pur, Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors through: 1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Institutional Area, Karkardooma Complex, Delhi. 3. The Chairman/Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation, DTC HQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Mrs. P.K. Gupta for DSSSB, Shri Anand Ranjan for Shri Anand Nandan for DTC) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G. George Paracken:
The applicant is an aspirant for the post of Driver in the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation (`DTC for short). He had applied for the aforesaid post to the Respondent No. 2, namely, the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (`DSSSB for short) pursuant to their advertisement in the Newspapers/Employment News in December, 2009. After he qualified in the selection process held by the DSSSB including written examination and skill test, etc. he has been included in the list of selected candidates and forwarded his case to the DTC for issuing him the offer of appointment. However, he was not given the appointment. On inquiry, he found that the respondent-DTC rejected his case on the ground that he was not having the requisite qualification of 10th standard pass from a recognized institution. The DTC pointed out that he had produced a certificate showing that he has passed the matriculation standard examination conducted by the Board of Adult Education and Training which is not a recognized institution. According to them, in terms of the Annexure R-1 Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Resources Development (Department of Education) on 18.08.1989, the Board of Adult Education and Training and the certificates issued by it are not recognized for any purposes whatsoever either by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) and Delhi Administration. Therefore, they have stated that the applicant is not eligible to be appointed as Driver.
2. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that even if the aforesaid certificate of matriculation standard examination passed by the applicant from the Board of Adult Education and Training is not recognized, he is having the higher educational qualification of Senior School Certificate Examination, 1994 held by the Central Board of Secondary Education (`CBSC for short) for which he was allowed to appear on the basis of the matriculation certificate issued by the aforesaid Board which he passed. Further, he has submitted that on the basis of the said qualification, the Respondent No. 1, namely, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has also allowed him to be admitted in the ITI and he studied the said course during the period from 1996-1998 and passed it in November, 1998. The applicant has also annexed copy of the Marks Statement of Senior School Certificate Examination, 1994 issued by the CBSC on 28.05.1994 declaring him pass in the said examination. Further, he has produced the provisional certificate issued by the Government Co-educational Senior Secondary School, Malcha Marg, New Delhi showing that he appeared from the said school at Delhi Senior School Certificate Examination of the CBSC held in 1994 and he was declared pass.
3. Mrs. P.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, namely, DSSSB has submitted that they have already selected the applicant on the basis of the certificates produced by him and they have no other role in the matter. She has also stated that they have no objection in appointing him as Driver if he is found otherwise eligible.
4. We have heard he learned counsel for the applicant Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Mrs. P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the DSSSB and Shri Anand Ranjan for Shri Anand Nandan for the DTC. As submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, when the applicant is already having higher qualification on the basis of the certificate issued to him from a recognized Institution, the respondents need not have insisted that the certificate of matriculation also should have been from a recognized institution. It is one thing that institution or the certificate issued by it is recognized for the purpose of employment by the Government/other Departments. But it is altogether a different matter that the same certificate is considered as sufficient for pursuing the higher education from recognized institutions. Once the basic educational qualification has been accepted for the purpose of pursuing the higher education, on passing such higher education the significance of the lower educational certificate goes. This is exactly what has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajpal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2002 (10) SCC 588). In the said case, the appellant was appointed as a Canal Patwari and he had sought regular appointment by applying to the Service Selection Board. His application was rejected on the ground that he had passed matriculation examination conducted by Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya in the year 1989 which was found to be not a University established by law. However, the appellant therein on the basis of the aforesaid certificate appeared and passed the matriculation examination held by the Haryana Education Board which is duly recognized. Since the appellant therein was having the higher educational qualification, the Apex Court directed the respondents to examine the case in the aforesaid background for making appropriate recommendation to the Govt. The said order being a short one is reproduced as under:
The appellant before us was appointed as a canal patwari in the year, 1995 and thereafter he sought for regular appointment by applying to the service selection board. That application was rejected. He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the board. It was disclosed that the appellant had passed matriculation examination conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa-vidyalaya in the year, 1989. It was found later on that the said Vishwavidyalaya is not a university established by law in India nor it has been declared to be a deemed university under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and he was found to possess certain qualifications which could not be taken note of and, therefore, the action of the board was upheld by the High Court in considering his case. Hence, this appeal.
2. It is brought to our notice that the appellant had passed 10+2 examination held by the Haryana Education Board which qualification is not suspected or doubtful. When the appellant possesses higher qualification from an appropriate board, we do not think it was necessary for the High Court to examine other aspects of the matter. In that view of the matter, the High Court should have allowed the writ petition rather than to dismiss it.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in H.S.E.B. & Ors v. Rajinder Kumar (civil appeal no. 6870/1995) wherein, it is noticed by this Court that it is permissible for the government when it came to know that the institution from which the appellant had passed was not recognised by the University Grants Commission, to take appropriate action in the matter. Shri P.C. Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Suresh Pal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 2027] to the effect that it would be unjust to tell the students that at the time of joining the course, it was recognised and they cannot be refused the benefit of such recognition thereafter. It is unnecessary to examine these questions in the view we have taken.
4. In the circumstances, we set aside the order made by the High Court and allow the writ petition filed by the appellant. However, it would be appropriate for the service selection board to examine the case of the appellant on the date he had filed the application which was the subject matter of the writ petition and decide the matter by making an appropriate recommendation to the government. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
4. In view of the above position, we allow this O.A. The respondent-DTC may, therefore, ignore the matriculation certificate issued to the applicant by the Board of Adult Education and Training for the purpose of appointment as Driver. However, if the higher qualification obtained by the applicant on the basis of the aforesaid matriculation certificate is found recognized by the authorities concerned, the respondents shall offer him appointment as Driver with all consequential benefits except back wages. In other words, if the applicant is otherwise found eligible, he shall be deemed to have been appointed from the date his batch mates have been appointed as Driver in the DTC. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) `SRD