Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Paramjit Kaur vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 2166/2013 Reserved on : 06.07.2015 Pronounced on : 29.07.2015 HONBLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A) Mrs. Paramjit Kaur, W/o Shri Manmeet Singh, Aged about 33 years, R/o 4/52, Phase-3, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 and has been selected as PGT-Biology through DSSSB but Govt. of NCT of Delhi has not given appointment letter. .. Applicant (By Advocate : Shri S.S. Tiwari) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, Near Indira Gandhi Stadium, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi. 3. Deputy Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Establishment-II Branch, Room No.223A, Old Secretariat, Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate : Mrs. Rashmi Chopra) ORDER
By Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in short, DSSSB) invited applications for the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (Biology)(Female), Post Code No.040/10, vide Advertisement No.02/2010 in July, 2010. As per the said Advertisement and also as per the Recruitment Rules for the said post, the essential educational qualifications are :
(i) Masters Degree (or its equivalent Oriental Degree, in the case of PGT-Sanskrit/Hindi) in the subject concerned from any recognised University.
(ii) Degree/Diploma in Training /Education.
2. The essential qualification of Degree/Diploma in Training/Education is relaxable in the case of candidates (i) having obtaining Ph.D. Degree in the subject concerned from a recognised University/Institution or (ii) having obtained 1st Division in Higher Secondary, Degree and Post Graduate Examination with the mandatory condition that the candidate will acquire the B.Ed./B.T. qualification within a period not exceeding three years from the date of his joining the service.
3. In pursuance of the said Advertisement, the applicant, an unreserved category candidate and possessing the qualifications of B.Sc. (Hons.) in Botany and M.Sc.(Biotechnology), has also submitted her application and participated in the consequential selection process and stood at No.3 by securing 141 marks under General category candidates as per Annexure-B, Result Notice No.192 dated 06.08.2012.
4. After submission and verification of the documents, though the respondents vide Annexure-A, Order dated 30.04.2013, appointed persons shown below the applicant in the aforesaid Result Notice dated 06.08.2012, but when not issued appointment order to the applicant basing on a Report of an Expert Committee that the candidates with M.Sc. (Botany/Zoology) are more suitable to teach students the foundation course at the Senior Secondary level as PGT (Biology), she filed the O.A.
5. Heard Shri S.S. Tiwari for the applicant and Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
6. Shri S.S. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant, would contend that Biology is not a specific field but is a broad field consisting of various disciplines like Botany, Zoology, Biotechnology, Micro Biology etc. and since the applicant is possessing B.Sc. (Hons.) in Botany and M.Sc. (Biotechnology), which is an equivalent Masters Degree in Botany, as required under the Advertisement and of the Recruitment Rules for the post of PGT (Biology), the applicant has applied for the post, and accordingly, stood at No.3 in the final result. Though the respondents appointed persons, who secured less marks than the applicant but denied the same to the applicant for an untenable reason, i.e. the applicant does not possess the required educational qualification. The learned counsel submits that even others, who were appointed, did not possess the Masters Degree in Biology but the applicant alone was discriminated.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant places heavy reliance on the Affiliation Bye-Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) (Annexure RA-1), and submits that her Masters Degree in Bio-Technology should be considered on par with M.Sc. Botany, since the applicant has studied her Graduation in Botany. The relevant part of the said Bye-Laws reads as under:
1.(a) @Masters degree in Botany or Zoology with Zoology or Botany OR Masters Degree in Zoology with Botany at graduate level.
OR M.Sc. in Life Science with Zoology and Botany at graduate level AND
(b) Degree in Education or three years teaching experience of Intermediate or higher classes
2. M.Sc. Ed. In the subject concerned from Regional Institute of Education, NCERT.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Note: i) Post Graduation in Statistics or Operational research be treated on par with M.A./M.Sc. Mathematics provided it is preceded by graduation in mathematics.
ii) Post Graduation in Pharma-Chemistry or other disciplines related to Chemistry be treated on par with M.Sc. Chemistry provided it is preceded by graduation in Chemistry.
iii) Post Graduation in Micro Biology or Molecular Biology or Agricultural Botany or Genetics or other related disciplines be treated on par with M.Sc. Botany/Zoology provided it is preceded by graduation in Botany/Zoology.
@ Rule amended in the Affiliation Committees meeting held on 25th June 2010 and approved by the Governing at meeting held on 29th June 2010. The learned counsel would submit that though in the aforesaid note, M.Sc. (Biotechnology) is not specifically mentioned, but it has to be construed that the same is included in Other Related Disciplines, and placed reliance on Annexure RA-2, which is a letter of the Institute of Applied Medicines and Research, dated 04.02.2014, whereunder it is stated that Biotechnology is a related discipline/concerned subject of Biology, and accordingly, the applicant is entitled for appointment.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that once the applicant fulfils the requirements provided by the CBSE in its Affiliation Bye-Laws, the Schools which are affiliated to CBSE and for which selection is made, cannot deny appointment to the applicant.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions:
(i) Vikramaditya Jain (Minor) Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1999 Delhi 232;
(ii) Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others Vs. Monika Shihani in WP(C) No.4477/2012 of the Honble High Court of Delhi, dated 17.08.2012;
(iii) Brijendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2000) 1 AWC 750;
(iv) O.A. No.720/2012 dated 28.11.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
10. Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while refuting the contentions of the applicant, submits as under:
(i) Identical O.As. in respect of the same Examination, same post, same issue were already considered and dismissed in O.A. Nos. 3015/2013 and batch, dated 19.09.2014 and O.A. No.4159/2013 dated 24.09.2014 by this Tribunal, and hence, the present O.A. is also liable to be dismissed for parity of reasons.
(ii) Annexure RA-1, on which the applicant places reliance, are the Bye-Laws for affiliation of the Schools, and hence, have no application for recruitment for any post and they cannot be equated to the approved and notified Recruitment Rules.
11. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of the Honble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170.
12. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the subject matter of this O.A. is squarely covered by a decision of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, we have carefully perused the orders of this Tribunal in O.A. No.3015/2013 and batch dated 19.09.2014 and O.A. No.4159/2013 dated 24.09.2014.
13. The applicant in O.A. No.1752/2013 and the applicant in O.A. 2780/2013, which were disposed of along with O.A. No. 3015/2013, were shown at Sl.No.5 and 2, respectively, in the Annexure-B, Result Notice, wherein the applicants name was shown at Sl.No.3. The said persons candidature was also not accepted though both of them were also secured enough marks against the available vacancies of PGT (Biology)(Female) like the applicant on the same ground that the Masters Degrees possessing by them were less suitable than the Masters Degree in M.Sc. (Botany/Zoology), basing on the Report of the Expert Committee.
14. This Tribunal in O.A. No.3015/2013 and batch, dated 19.09.2014, examined identical issue under identical circumstances, in detail, while dismissing the O.As. observed as under:
6. In the present case, the RRs for the post in question provided Master Degree in the subject concerned from any recognized university as one of the essential qualification for being eligible for the post. Admittedly, there is no course like Master Degree in Biology. As has been ruled by Honble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, it was beyond the jurisdiction of DSSSB to comment upon the eligibility of the candidates. In such circumstances, they admitted the candidates with Master Degree in Bio-Technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro Biology and Genetics in the examination held for selection to the post of PGT (Biology). Nevertheless having due regard to the competence of the power of the State legislative and the Governor of the State, i.e. the Executive to frame the rules under Article 309 of the Constitution in the notice for selection as well also in the result notice they indicated that it was for the appointing authority to satisfy itself about the eligibility of the candidates as per RRs before finally appointing the candidates. In this regard, we may refer to column 9 (v) of Section C of the notice published vide advertisement no. 2/2010 and the relevant excerpt of result notice, which reads as under:-Advertisement notice 2/10
(v) The Board makes provisional selection of the candidates on the basis of information and documents/certificates provided by the candidate in his/her application form and recommend the same to the indenting department. Further the Appointing Authority, i.e. the indenting department verifies and satisfies itself about the authenticity of documents/certificates and eligibility as per the Recruitment Rules before finally appointing the candidate(s). Therefore, the provisional selection of a candidate confers him/her no right of appointment unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such inquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respect for appointment to the post. xxxx xxx Result Notice No 192 dated 6.08.2012 The selection of the above (12) Twelve candidates shall further be subject to candidates fulfilling the eligibility conditions of the post, as prescribed by the statutory Recruitment Rules and terms and conditions of advertisement as indicated in the advertisement inviting applications and also subject to thorough verification of their identity with reference to their photograph, signatures and handwriting etc. on the application form, admission certificates etc by the user department. The candidature of the candidate is liable to be cancelled by the user Department also, in case candidate is found not fulfilling the eligibility conditions or any other genuine reason. The Competent Authority of the user Department shall arrange to verify the correctness of information/documents as furnished in the application form after verification of the same from original documents/issuing authority. Mere inclusion of name in the result notice does not confer any right upon the candidate over the post. Thus, there being ambiguity in the RRs, the appointing authority took upon it the responsibility to satisfy itself about the eligibility of the candidates. In such process a decision was taken to refer the case of the applicant to an Expert Committee consisting of the members from the Directorate of Education and Delhi University as it was so done in the case of PGT (Home Science). Such decision was taken at the level of Secretary (Education). The relevant excerpt of the note dated 20.02.2013 finally approved by the Secretary (Education) read as under:-
Keeping in view of the above contradictory position, we may refer the following matters to the committee to be constituted for taking decision for the consideration of these cases for the appointment in subject concerned.
1. Candidates having educational qualification in Masters degree in Bio technology, Bio Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics for the appointment of PGT (Biology).
2. Candidate having educational qualification in Masters Degree in Electronics for the appointment of PGT (Physics).
3. Candidates having educational qualification in Masters degree in M.SC., Home Sc (Food Science & Nutrition) and other specialization mentioned against Sl. No.7 to 20 for the appointment of PGT (Home Science).
Earlier, the committee to consider the educational qualification as per the contents of the subject and in comparison to the RRs, was set up in the chairpersonship of Dr.(Mrs) Sunita Kaushik, Addl. DE (School) We may, again request the School Branch to constitute a committee to decide the above mentioned cases.
Submitted please.
Sd/-
O.S(E-II) A.D.E (E.II) Sd/-
ADDL. DE (Admn.) Sd/-
DE Secy (Edn) As a result of aforementioned decision, the following Committee was constituted to consider the case of the candidates having educational qualification of Master Degree in Bio-Technology, Micro-Biology, Bio Chemistry and Genetics regarding their appointment for the post of PGT (Biology):
(1) Addl. DE (School) ..Chairman (2) One expert each in Biology/Physics/Home Science subject from Delhi University to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor Delhi University ..Member (3) One expert each in Biology/Physics/Home Science subject from SCERT .. Member (4) An officer of the level of Principal/Vice Principal worked as PGT (Biology), Physics & Home Science to be nominated by DDE (North) .. Member
In order to have the representative of an expert from Biology, Zoology and Home Science from Delhi University to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor of the University the respondent No. 2 had a prolix missive with the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University. Finally the expert committee assembled and viewed that the Masters Degree in Botany/ Zoology are more suitable to teach students the foundation course at the senior secondary level. The Committee also viewed that specialized branches, i.e. Bio-Technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics are only the small components of the syllabus or course contents taught to the students at senior secondary level. For easy reference, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee dated 4.06.2013 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A meeting was held on 22.05.2013 at 02.00 PM under the chairpersonship of Smt. Sunita Kaushik, Additional Director of Education (School) in the Chamber of Addl. DE (School) to examine the issue of the candidates having educational qualification in Master Degree in Bio-technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics are fit for the appointment of PGT Biology.
The following members were present:
1. Smt. Sunita Kaushik, Add DE (School)..Chairman
2. Prof. V.K.Bhasin (Zoology) Deptt.of Zoology, University of Delhi. .. Member
3. Sh.S.D.Sharma (Biology) Principal, RPVV Rajniwas Marg .. Member
4. Dr.Bandita B.Mohanty (Biology), Sr.Lecturer, DIET Keshav Puram .. Member The agenda of the meeting was discussed in details and the committee decided unanimously the following:-
1. The candidate for the post of PGT (Biology) must have M.Sc degree in Botany or Zoology as they can impart the basic concept in Biology clearly to teach the students at the Senior Secondary level.
2. As the candidates go higher in any specialized branch (i.e., Bio-Technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics) other than M.Sc. Botany or Zoology, they will not do justice to the basic subject of Biology upto Senior Secondary level. Further specialized branches (i.e., Bio-Technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics) are only the small components of the syllabus or course contents taught to the students at Senior Secondary level.
3. As a PGT (Biology) the candidate with M.Sc Botany/Zoology are more suitable to teach students the foundation course at the senior secondary level. From the aforementioned, it is clear that in the wake ambiguity in the RRs regarding the subject in which Master Degree was required to become eligible for the post of PGT (Biology), the only option left to the appointing authority i.e. respondent No. 2 was to refer the matter to Expert Committee and the authority acted accordingly. Though the DSSSB had prescribed the syllabus for part I and Part II of the examination and tested the suitability of the candidates by subjecting them to such examination, but it had emphasized in the notice for examination as also in result notice that a view regarding eligibility was required to be taken by the appointing authority. In the RRs, it was specifically mentioned that in order to become eligible for the posts in question, the candidates needed to possess Masters degree in the concerned subject. There is no degree like Masters Degree in Biology. In such situation, an assessment was required to be made regarding the concerned subject i.e. which subject could be considered as concerned subject. In order to identify the concerned subject, the appointing authority appointed Expert Committee and the Committee identified the Botany/Zoology as the concerned subject. Thus it is not so that the Expert Committee assessed the suitability of the candidates for the post in question but it only identified the concerned subject in which Master Degree was required to be possessed by the candidates to become eligible for the post. Even though the Committee has used the expression suitable in its minutes, but such expression is used only to identify the concerned subject as mentioned in the RRs and not to adjudge the suitability of the individual. From the minutes of meeting of the Committee, it is more than clear that the Committee did not assess the suitability of the individuals, but only assessed the suitability of the qualification i.e. Master Degree in the subject required to be possessed by the candidates to become eligible for the post in question. In view of the aforementioned it is held that in the wake of ambiguity in the RRs, the respondent No 2 was justified in determining the concerned subject with reference to RRs to determine the eligibility of the candidates after obtaining the view of Expert Committee (ibid).
15. We are in full agreement with the aforesaid well considered, well reasoned and detailed judgment of this Tribunal, which was rendered in respect of the same Advertisement, same post and issues under identical circumstances. In view of this finding, we need not to go in detail, with other decisions cited by either side, which in our opinion have no application to the facts of this case.
16. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, Annexure RA-1, i.e. the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, cannot be equated with the Recruitment Rules and have no application in the present facts of the case.
17. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the O.A. is devoid of any merit, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR) (V. AJAY KUMAR) Member (A) Member (J) /Jyoti/