Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Preeti Rathi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 29 December, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.714/2009 New Delhi, this the 29th day of December, 2009 Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Mrs. Preeti Rathi S/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar R/o House No.4, Vill. Bakar Garh, P.O. Ujwa, New delhi 110 073. 2. Mr. Hasnuzzaman S/o Mr. Mohammad Mushtaq, R/o A-1, Medical Store, 25 Ft. Road, Street No.22, New Mustafabad, Delhi 110 094. 3. Mrs. Sonia Sharma W/o Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma R/o Swastik House, 171 Lane No.5, Mandoli Extension, Delhi 110 093. 4. Ms. Fouzia Begum D/o Late Jameel Ahmed R/o 1101, First Floor, Gali Chabuk Sawar, Lal Kuan, Delhi 110 006. 5. Ms. Kavita Shokeen D/o Shri Nafe Singh R/o 203-C, Village Nawada, P.O. Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110 059. 6. Ms. Farhat Parveen D/o mr. Abdul Waheed, R/o House No.2301, Chhatta Mom gran, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Delhi 110 006. 7. Ms. Pratibha Rani D/o Mr. D. P. Singh R/o House No.1/5470, Street No.16, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi 110 032. 8. Ms. Nusrat Jahan D/o Mr. Mohammad Humayun R/o E-15/UG-2, Dilshad Colony, Delhi 110 095. 9. Ms. Hamida Begum D/o Sayyed Ali, R/o House No.4144, Gali Nizam Ul Mulk, Urdu Bazaar, Jama Masjid, Delhi 110 006. 10. Ms. Bushra Taj D/o Mr. Taj Mohammad Shah R/o 264, Noor Nagar Extension, Johri Farm, Jamia Nagar, Delhi 110 025. 11. Mr. Sazid Ali S/o Mr. Abdul Latif, R/o H-120, Babar Street, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi 110 025. 12. Mr. Naved Akhtar S/o Mr. Mohammed Haneef, R/o House No.115, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi 110 013. 13. Mr. Mohd. Anis Khan S/o Mr. Bandey Ali Khan R/o B-273, Welcome, Seelam Pur, Delhi 110 053. 14. Mr. Mohd. Naeem Ahmed S/o Mr. Abdul Waheed, R/o House No.7179, Gali Garhiya, Quresh Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Delhi 110 006. 15. Ms. Yasmeen D/o Late Mohd. Mazhar, 912, Gali Chah Sherian Farash Khana, Delhi 110 006. 16. Ms. Shagufta Parveen D/o mr. Mohd. Ayub, K-85, Gali No.3, Near Khaddey Wali Masjid, Gautam Vihar, Delhi 110 053. 17. Shri Jai Bhagwan S/o Shri Daya Nand, T-13/2, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., Delhi 110 010. 18. Ms. Ruby Aslam D/o Mr. Aslam Parvez, R/o 980, Punjabi Phatak, Balli Maran, Delhi 110 006. 19. Ms. Ghazala Rana D/o Mr. M. K. Rana D-170, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Delhi 110 025. 20. Mr. Suraj-Ul-Haque S/o Mr. Meraj-il-Haque, E-51, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi 110 025. 21. Ms. Shahina Khatoon W/o Mr. Nayeem Ahmed, R/o House No.C-7, Dilshad Colony, Delhi 110 095. 22. Ms. Rubina Begum D/o Late Mohd. Sharif, R/o M-44, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi 110 025. 23. Mr. Roshan Tanveer S/o Late Zia-ur-Rehman, R/o M-44, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi 110 025. 24. Ms. Alia Goher, D/o Mr. Shoukat Ali Khan, R/o 264, Opposite Musa Masjid, Noor Nagar, Delhi 110 025. 25. Ms. Rubina Begum D/o Late Muneer Khan, R/o 264/A, Opposite T.T.I. College, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Delhi 110 025. 26. Ms. Uzma Aziz D/o mr. Aziz Ullah Khan R/o House No.D-65, Noor nagar, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Delhi 110 025. 27. Ms. Nabeela Nuzhat D/o Mr. Mohd. Zahir, R/o 6297, Gali bait Wali, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi 110 006. . Applicants. (By Advocate : Sh. S. M. Arif) Versus 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 2. The Director Primary Education Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. 3. Delhi Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Secretary, Third Floor, U.T.C.S. Building, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. 4. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Sh. Amit K. Paul Respondent No.1&2. Sh. Vijay Pandita for Respondent No.3&4.) :ORDER: Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
This OA has been filed by 27 Applicants claiming the following reliefs:-
(i) To allow the OA.
To direct the Respondents to declare the results of the Applicants for the post of primary teachers, who were allowed to appear in the examination on the interim directions of the Honble High Court of Delhi.
To direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicants on the post of primary teachers after giving the age relaxation as they were appointed as primary teachers on contract basis within the age limit prescribed at the relevant time.
To impose heavy cost on the Respondents in favour of the Applicants.
Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell reveal that the Applicants were appointed as Primary Teachers on contract basis in the year 2001 under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD). All of them are still continuing in the same capacity. It is the case of the Applicant that at the time of their appointment on contract basis, as Primary Teachers, they were within the age prescribed for the said post (32 years for male candidates and 42 years for female candidates). As per Elementary Teachers Education (in short E.T.E.) Diploma Course being run by the S.C.E.T., the age limit for the said post was 17 years to 30 years and it takes two years to complete the same. On 13.07.2007, the Respondents notified the amended Recruitment Rules for the post of Primary Teacher under Respondent No.1 and 2, as per which the upper age limit for appointment was reduced to 27 years for both male and female the category of candidates. The aforesaid amendment to the Recruitment Rules was challenged by the Applicants along with others by way of filing Writ Petitions before the Honble High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi passed an interim order in favour of Applicants and they were permitted to appear in the examination for appointment as regular Primary Teachers. The Writ Petitions filed by the Applicants along with others were disposed off by the Honble High Court of Delhi with the directions to the Respondents that all those candidates who have completed E.T.E. Course either in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 to appear in the examination conducted by the Respondents for the post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) once each of the Respondents i.e. MCD and Government of N.C.T. of Delhi provided they do not exceed the age limit of 32 years for males and 42 years for female subject to their fulfilling other eligibility conditions. Further, it is stated by the Applicant that the said order would also apply to the candidates, who have already taken the examination as permitted by the Honble High Court. The said relaxation will be independent of the relaxation applicable to the reserved categories. Thereafter, Applicants appeared in the said examination on the interim directions issued by the Honble High Court of Delhi and came to know that they had qualified in the said examination, however, they have not been recommended for appointment only on the ground of over-age and their results have been withheld. Being aggrieved, Applicants have no other option but to file the present OA.
3. Shri S.M. Arif, the learned counsel representing the Applicants contended that since the Applicants were within the prescribed age limit at the time of engagement on contract basis as Teachers, they must not be denied the regular appointment solely on the ground of overage. Age relaxation granted in the judgment dated 11.8.2006 by the Honble High Court was also applicable to the Applicants. Moreover, it is submitted that due to intervention of the Honble High Court, the Applicants appeared in the examination and having passed the tests are entitled to be appointed as Teachers on regular basis. He also cited the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2294-2329/2008 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.1255-90/2005 in the case of Union Public Service Commission Versus Dr. Jamuna Kurup and Others decided on 21.2.2008 where Doctors on contract basis were granted age relaxation upto 5 years.
4. Shri Amit Kumar Paul, learned counsel representing the Respondent 1 and 2, and Shri Vijay Pandita, learned counsel representing the Respondent 3 and 4 very vehemently opposed the contentions led by Shri Arif. Respondents have opposed this OA by filing the counter affidavit. Respondents have submitted in the written affidavit that the Applicants have willfully concealed material facts from this Tribunal and have not approached with clean hands. It was contended that Applicants have failed to disclose as to whether they have completed their ETE Course in 2006/2007/2008 since the benefit of relaxation given by the High Court in Sachin Guptas case operates only for those candidates who had completed their ETE course in 2006/2007/2008. Shri Pandita contends that if on the other hand the Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that despite their agitating the issue no relaxation has been given by the Division Bench to candidates working with the Respondent on contract basis while the same has been given to those who completed their ETE course in 2006/2007/2008 then they ought to have challenged the said order by preferring an SLP before the Apex Court. Shri A.K. Paul contended that post of Primary Teachers in the MCD being Category C posts as per Section 92 A of DMC Act, the Respondent was duty bound to send number of vacancies to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board- a body nominated and authorized by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for carrying out recruitments to the said posts. The Respondent MCD makes selections after due verification on the basis of the selection list furnished by the DSSSB after compilation of the result and verification formalities by them. Till the select list is made available by the DSSSB the MCD has no role to play in the recruitment process. The Recruitment Rules for the said posts were amended and notified on 13/072007 (Annexure-R1). Shri Paul highlighted that the amended recruitment rules were a departure from the earlier rules in as much as those prescribed as an essential eligibility criterion the minimum and maximum age between 20-27 years (which earlier was 32 for males and 42 for females), passing of Hindi at the secondary level and a minimum of 50% marks at the senior secondary level. He also informed that when the examination was finally held many Applicants though otherwise ineligible were allowed to participate in the examination on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Honble High Court in their cases on account of the fact that inter alia they had challenged the recruitment rules/advertisement. The only exception given by the Honble High Court is in favour of those candidates who had completed their ETE course either in 2006 or 2007 or 2008. It is only in the case of these candidates that relaxation in the age limit as specified by the Honble High Court in its judgment is to be given. Therefore, both counsel pleaded the OA deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the contentions of the rival parties, we also perused the pleadings. The only issue that is to be determined by us in this OA is whether the Applicants are eligible to get age relaxation as per the judgment of Honble High Court for appointment as Teachers in MCD on regular basis?
6. We take the extract of the relevant paragraph of the Judgement of Honble High Court which reads as follows:-
To conclude, the language and marks criteria (namely passing of Hindi subject at primary level and minimum 50% marks in senior secondary examination) are upheld in their entirety. Even the age criteria (namely minimum and maximum eligibility age as 20-27 years respectively) is upheld but with a view to ameliorate the hardship of already enrolled students in ETE courses, it is directed that the Respondents would permit all those candidates who have completed the ETE course either in the year 2006 or 2007 or 2008 to appear in the examination conducted by the Respondents for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) once each of the Respondents i.e. MCD and Govt. of NCT of Delhi provided they do not exceed the upper age limit of 32 years for males and 42 years for females and also fulfill all other eligibility conditions. This would also apply to candidates, who have already taken the examination as permitted by this Court. This relaxation will be independent of the relaxation applicable to reserved categories. However, the Relaxation granted by this Court shall cease to operate for the ETE courses after 2008 i.e. commencing from 2009 as from 30th September, 2007 the maximum age limit for ETE course has been reduced from 30 years to 24 years. Except to the above extent, legality and validity of the impugned RRs are upheld and accordingly the entire batch of writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
7. From the perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the Applicants do not fall in the category eligible for relaxation as specified by the Honble High Court as they were working as contract teachers in the MCD for long. The High Court has explicitly held hat the benefit of relaxation in age is only being given to those candidates who had already enrolled themselves in the ETE course and would suddenly find themselves age barred on its completion on account of the amendment in the recruitment rules. All such candidates were to be permitted to be given one chance each in the examination for the post of teachers to the MCD as well as the GNCTD. Thus if a candidate had already appeared and had completed his ETE in 2006 or 2007 or 2008 and was overage but within 32 years for males and 42 for females and fulfilled all other eligibility criteria prescribed in rules then his or her case would be considered by virtue of the one chance benefit given by the Honble High Court and no further opportunity of appearing in the examination would be given to them. Age at the time of contract engagement cannot be the basis since no such direction has been issued by Honble High Court, nor such provision exist in the amended Recruitment Rules. We find that the Applicants are misinterpreting the order of the Honble High Court and the only basis of their claim that they too ought to be given the relaxation merely because they had been permitted to appear on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Court by overlooking the final judgment is devoid of merit. Though, using the interim directions of the High Court, the Applicants might have written the examination but the interim direction merges with the final Judgment passed by the High Court. In our view, because the Applicants wrote examination they have not acquired any right to be appointed to the post of Teacher since in the final Judgment they have not been granted any relief. The case of Dr. Jamuna Kurup (supra) is far different from the present case and thus nor applicable.
8. Taking into account the full facts and circumstances of the case, and having been guided by the Judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in Sachin Gupta case, we come to the considered conclusion that Original Application doesnt have merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) /jk/