Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Narayan Lal Meena S/O Shri Kishan Lal ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3613/2010 This the 30th day of September 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Narayan Lal Meena s/o Shri Kishan Lal Meena r/o Plot No.21, Govind Vihar Opposite SBI Bank, Jagatpura Jaipur, Rajasthan 322205 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Shweta Singh for Shri Rajat Aneja) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board F-18, Institutional Area Karkardooma, Delhi-32 3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 ..Respondents (By Advocates: Ms. P.K. Gupta for respondents 1 & 2 Shri R.K. Jain for respondent 3) O R D E R
Shri M L Chauhan:
The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
A. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Honble Court may be pleased to set aside the Show Cause Notices issued by the M.C.D. threatening to terminate the service of the Applicant, and further directions are also liable to be issued against the Respondents and in particular, the M.C.D., restraining them from taking any adverse action against the Applicant pertaining to his employment as Teacher (Primary) with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in the light of the detailed facts, circumstances and grounds stated hereinabove (Annexure A-1).
B. It is further most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders, in the alternative, to set aside the termination orders, if any, passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the Applicant in respect of his post of Teacher (Primary) and the cut-off date of 29.10.2007 as alleged by the Respondents, may kindly be directed to be regularized so as to include the applicant within the requisite criteria or the said cut-off date of 29.10.2007 be set aside; in the light of facts and circumstances explained hereinabove.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 12.10.2007, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued a public notice thereby inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The last date for applying, i.e., submitting the application was 29.10.2007. As per the advertisement, the applicable educational qualification to be eligible was:
(i) Senior Secondary (10+2) or intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board.
(ii) Two Years Diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed from a recognized institution.
(iii) Must have passed Hindi as a subject as secondary level.
3. Pursuant to the said advertisement, applicant applied for the said post where ultimately he was selected. At this stage, it will be relevant to state here that as on 29.10.2007, which was the cut-off date for the purpose of eligibility, the applicant was not possessing two years diploma/certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed from a recognized institution. It is the case of the applicant that he cleared the 1st term examination under the ETE course in June 2006, however, the 2nd term was scheduled to be held in June 2007 but on account of controversial agitation in the State of Rajasthan owing to demands of the Gujjar community the ETE examination got postponed on account of law and order problems. Thus, the ETE examinations were eventually conducted in October 2007 by the concerned University at Bikaner where the applicant appeared in the said examination, which concluded on 27.10.2007 and the results were declared on 12.3.2008.
4. Admittedly, the applicant was not fulfilling the requisite educational qualification as on 29.10.2007. However, the applicant was allowed to appear in the written examination and interview despite the fact that he was not eligible and was also ultimately given offer of appointment. However, vide the show cause notice dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure A-1), the applicant was asked to show cause as to why his services should not terminated being in violation of the Recruitment Rules, as he had not possessed two years diploma/certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed from a recognized institution on the last date of submission of applications, i.e., 29.10.2007, as the mark sheet of second year has been issued on 12.3.2008. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Tribunal.
5. Notice of this application was given to the respondents, who have filed their separate reply affidavits thereby opposing the claim of the applicant. By way of reply affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2, it has been stated that the present OA against the impugned show cause notice is not maintainable and is pre-mature. On merits, it has been stated that the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission, i.e., on 29.10.2007 in terms of paragraph 5 of the advertisement as such his appointment is illegal.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinders to the reply affidavits filed by the respective respondents, thereby reiterating his submissions made in the OA.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by the High Court in Santosh Kumar Meena v. GNCT of Delhi & others (WP (C) No.1343/2010 with connected petitions) decided on 7.9.2010 and argued that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of the High Court in the said writ petition. We have perused the said judgment and according to us, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the High Court on facts as well as on law. At this stage, it will be useful to quote paragraphs 7 & 8 of the said judgment, which thus read:-
7. Thus, the petitioners filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Whereas the petitioners of the three captioned writ petitions other than W.P. (C) No.1343/2010 urged before the Tribunal that due to agitation by members of the Gujjar Community the result of the ETE examination got postponed and was subsequently declared on 12.03.2008. Thus such a delay in declaration of result could not be on account of the part of the petitioners. Also the result was announced on 12.3.2008 which was a date much prior to the date of completion of the selection process conducted by the Board. Hence, they claimed that said petitioners fulfilled the educational qualifications as required by the terms of the advertisement by the time the results were declared.
8. In addition to the aforenoted averments, the petitioners of writ petition No.1343/2010 urged that they had acted to their detriment inasmuch as petitioner Santosh Kuamr Meena stated that he was an employee under Western Railways and had been issued a letter of appointment by the Kendriya Vidyalaya which he had not accepted as he had been offered appointment by the MCD. Petitioner Sushila Meena, Anuj Kumar Ran Singh and Ganga Sahai Meena stated that since they were issued letters of appointment by the MCD they did not take the examination conducted by the DSSSB for filling up vacant post of teachers in the year 2009. Petitioner Saroj Dagar claimed to have resigned as a contractual Teacher when letter of offer giving appointment was issued to him. In other words all the six writ petitioners of W.P. (C) 1343/2010 claimed special equities in their favour. They highlighted that they had made no misrepresentation to the respondents.
9. The High Court of Delhi after taking notice of the judgment of the Apex Court in paragraph 11 has held as under:-
11. Whatsoever may be the reason and howsoever it may not be in the control of the writ petitioners, the fact that due to a civil disobedience movement by members of the Gujjar Community in the State of Rajasthan and Western Haryana the results of the examination taken by the petitioners could not be declared on time is irrelevant and it must be held that the petitioners were not qualified by the cut-off date i.e. 29.10.2007 and thus we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal of the writ petitioners not being eligible for appointment
10. As already stated above, according to us, the ratio as laid down by the High Court is squarely covered in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The contention raised by the applicant in this OA is the same as has been noticed by the High Court in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment. Thus, according to us, in the light of the judgment rendered by the High Court in the aforesaid petition, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief.
11. At this stage, we may also notice the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & others, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244. That was a case where the appellant was appointed to a teaching post for which prescribed educational qualification according to statutory provisions was B.Ed degree. It was later on found that he obtained this degree from Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth, Sankat Mochan Dham, Darbhanga, Bihar, which was not a university recognised by the University Grants Commission or a university set up by Central or State Act. The appellant was given an opportunity to obtain degree from a recognised university. He accordingly applied for B.Ed degree through correspondence course from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rothtak and produced the mark sheet. Later on, a show cause notice was served on him on the ground that the appellant obtained appointment through fabricated and illegal B.Ed. degree. Ultimately, after holding departmental inquiry, services of the appellant were terminated. The Apex Court in the said case has held that The qualification for holding a post have been laid down under a statute. Any appointment in violation thereof would be a nullity. It is a matter of concern that appointments are being offered by the authorities of the State without verifying the fact as to whether the degree(s) possessed by the candidate(s) are valid or not. It was an ad hoc appointment. Why despite the same, he was allowed to obtain degree from another university is not known. If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularised, particularly, when the statute term says so.
12. To the similar effect is also another decision of the Apex Court in Jenany J.R. v. S. Rajeevan & others, (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 109. That was a case where respondent 1, who did not fulfill the eligibility condition of educational qualification on crucial date was not given appointment whereas the appellant, who possessed the requisite educational qualification on that date, was selected for appointment in response to the advertisement. It may be stated that as per Note 2 appended to Rule 43 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, promotion under the rule shall be made from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of vacancy, which had arisen on 1.7.2003. The appellant, who possessed the requisite qualification on that date, was selected for appointment in response to the advertisement and given appointment by order dated 11.9.2003 but she joined service on 23.10.2003. By that time, respondent 1 had come to possess requisite educational qualification by virtue of re-evaluation where he had been declared pass on 23.9.2003. The High Court taking note of the fact that the appellant joined service on 23.10.2003 before which date the appellant was declared passed on 23.9.2003 by virtue of re-evaluation, was thus eligible for appointment, as such appointment of appellant was quashed. Matter went to the Apex Court wherein it has been held that according to plain language of relevant rule, educational qualification was to be determined on cut-off date, i.e., 1.7.2003. On that date, only appellant possessed requisite educational qualification and not respondent 1. Appellants appointment was therefore unassailable. Acquisition of qualification subsequently by respondent 1 was of no consequence. Thus, the judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court.
13. If the matter is viewed in the light of the judgment rendered by the High Court in Santosh Kumar Meenas case (supra), which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, as stated above, we are of the firm view that the applicant was not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary), as he did not fulfill the requisite educational qualification and his application was to be rejected at the threshold. Acquiring educational qualification after the cut-off date is of no consequence.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. Interim stay granted by this Tribunal on 29.10.2010 is hereby vacated. No costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/