Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Bharti Devi Mital @ Bharti Agarwal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.788/2013 Friday, this the 29th day of November 2013 Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) 1. Mrs. Bharti Devi Mital @ Bharti Agarwal w/o Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal and d/o Mr. Rajendra Prasad r/o 132/D1, First Floor Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi-89 2. Mrs. Rajni Yadav w/o Mr. Devender Singh Yadav and d/o late Mr. Vijay Pal Singh Yadav r/o 2027/158 Tri Nagar Delhi-35 ..Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. K P Gupta) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate New Delhi 2. Director of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education Old Secretariat Delhi 3. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) FC-18, Institutional Area Karkardooma Delhi-92 Through its Secretary ..Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Pandita) O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
Vide Advertisement No.1/13 (Annexure A-1), the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) invited applications in prescribed OMR Form for various posts, including the Post Code 01/13, i.e., Special Education Teacher. In the said Advertisement, essential qualification for the post was prescribed as 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 and Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the CBSE. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the said Advertisement reads as under:-
Essential Qualification: (i) Graduate with B. Ed. (Special Education) or B. Ed. with a 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, (ii) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the CBSE.
2. As has been stated in the Original Application, the applicants applied for the post in question and filed the present Original Application expressing apprehension that since they had not passed the CTET conducted by the CBSE, which is necessary requirement as per the Advertisement, their candidature might be summarily rejected. This Tribunal passed the interim order dated 26.4.2013 directing the respondents to allow the applicants to appear in the written examination provisionally. For easy reference, the said interim order passed by the Tribunal is extracted hereinbelow:-
9. In view of the aforesaid, it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to allow the applicants to appear in the test provisionally which is scheduled to be held on 28.4.2013 for the post of Special Education Teacher subject to the final outcome of this Application. It is further directed that results of the applicants shall be kept in sealed cover and shall not be acted upon or declared without the leave of this Tribunal. At the strength of the aforesaid order, the applicants participated in the examination, result of which has not yet been declared.
3. The short question arises to be determined in the present Original Application is, when the applicants have not passed the CTET conducted by the CBSE whether they can be considered eligible for the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code 01/13). Mr. K.P. Gupta, learned counsel for applicants submitted that in the recruitment rules dated 4.11.2010, there is no such condition that only such candidates who qualify the CTET are eligible for the post of Special Education Teacher. He referred to Column 8 of the recruitment rules. He also argued that for the purpose of recruitment to any post, the recruitment rules issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are sacrosanct and even if there is some parallel piece of legislation, the spirit of the same need to be reflected in such rules by way of amendment. He emphasized that no condition contrary to recruitment rules could be stipulated while filling up the post of Special Education Teacher.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Pandita, learned counsel for respondents produced a copy of the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi passed in Ruchika Arora & others v. Union of India & others (Writ Petition (C) No.2544/2013) decided on 22.4.2013 and submitted that the issue involved in the present Original Application is, in all fours, of the said judgment.
5. In rejoinder, Mr. K P Gupta, learned counsel for applicant submitted that in the said order of Honble High Court the issue, i.e., unless the amendment is carried in the recruitment rules in this regard, the provisions contained in any parallel piece of legislation is of no consequence in the matter of recruitment has not been dealt with by Honble High Court of Delhi and the said judgment is sub silentio.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. We find that the condition of requirement of qualifying the CTET conducted by the CBSE for appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher was stipulated in Notification dated 7.10.2011, which reads as under:-
Directorate of Education (Establishment-IV Branch) Notification Delhi, the 7th October, 2011 No. F.4(6)(350)/E.IV/2011/621. In pursuance of sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide Notification No.215, F.No.61-03/20/2010/NCTE (N&S), dated 23rd August, 2010 laid down one of the minimum essential qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the said Act, that he/she should pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) which will be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed for the purpose.
And Whereas, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide letter No.76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad./A31222, dated 14th February, 2011 has specified the guidelines for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). Para 10 (Applicability) of said guidelines specifies that:-
TET conducted by a State Government/UT with legislature shall apply:
A school of the State Government/UT with legislature and local authority referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act; and A School referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of the Section 2 of the RTE Act in that State/UT.
A School at (i) and (ii) may also consider eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET certificate awarded by another State/UT with legislature. In case a State Government/UT with legislature decides not to conduct a TET, a school at (i) and (ii) that State/UT would consider the TET conducted by the Central Government. And Whereas, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has been authorized by the Central Government to conduct the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) for Primary and Upper Primary level on the behalf of Central Government.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No.F.27/59-Him. (I), dated the 13th July, 1959, the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to recognize only Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for appointment of Teachers for Class I to V and Class VI to VIII in the schools of Delhi in lieu of any State Teacher Eligibility Test.
8. As far as the question of application of such provision to Special Education Teacher is concerned, we find that the petitioners before the Honble High Court of Delhi were candidates for the post of Special Education Teacher only. In the said case, the Honble High Court categorically viewed that once the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility condition mentioned in the Advertisement, they could not have been considered eligible for the post in question. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the said judgment reads as under:-
2. Applicants, as per the advertisement under 1/13 (which is filed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) for appointment as a Special Education Teacher in Directorate of Education, besides having the qualification of being a graduate with B. Ed (Special Education), must also have passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by CBSE. Petitioners are the aspirants for the advertised posts.
3. The requirement of teachers, holding the other qualification, of clearing the CTET Test conducted by CBSE, was as to bring about better education standards. Powers were accordingly exercised by the appropriate authority from time to time under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The National Council for Teacher Education vide its circular dated 11.2.2011 has issued the guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Tests under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. CTET examinations are accordingly being conducted for the teachers.
4. Petitioners admittedly do not have the CTET qualification. They have not appeared for the CTET examination, and thus do not have the CTET qualification. The petitioners yet claim that they should be entitled to apply for and seek appointment pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/13 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
5. xx xx xx xx
6. In my opinion, the writ petition is clearly misconceived for the reason that this Court cannot sit in the place of the appropriate authority which decides qualifications for being employed as teachers. In the present case, so far as the employer is concerned, being the National Capital Territory of Delhi, it has quite clearly been prescribed in the advertisement that the Special Education Teachers must have CTET qualification. I do not think that there is any illegality or absurdity in any employer asking that to seek appointment/employment as a teacher, he/she must have CTET qualification, and which qualification was to bring about a higher standard of education. The circular dated 11.1.2012 of the Rehabilitation Council of India does not in any manner support the petitioners case inasmuch as though the qualifications with respect to teachers of different classes have been specified in the said circular (which is filed as Annexure P-7), however, the said circular begins with the expression minimum requirement i.e the requirements as mentioned for appointment as Special Education Teachers must consist of at least those qualifications which are specified in the circular dated 11.1.2012 i.e it does not mean that any employer cannot insist that teachers must have additional CTET qualification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to sit in the examination and seek appointment without CTET qualification is misconceived and rejected.
7. So far as the issue of there not being adequate numbers of Special Education Teachers is concerned, first of all I cannot believe such a self serving averment that there are not enough Special Education Teachers having CTET qualifications because there is no basis on facts and documents to substantiate the same. In my opinion, this is an issue which the appropriate authorities will consider, including the authorities which are seeking employment for the Special Education Teachers. However, Courts cannot interfere in matters, merely on presumptive issues of there not existing adequate number of teachers.
8. xx xx xx xx
9. That takes us to the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that CTET qualifications are only required for teaching languages, social studies, mathematics, science, etc etc and not with respect to Special Education Teachers. For this purpose, the following portion of the notification dated 29.7.2011 issued by the appropriate authority under Section 23(1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is relied upon:-
(IV) For para 5 of the Principal Notification, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
5.(a) Teacher appointed after the date of this notification in certain cases:- Where an appropriate Government or local authority or a school has issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such appointments may be made in accordance with the NCTE(Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time).
(b) The minimum qualification norms referred to in this Notification apply to teachers of Languages, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, etc. In respect of teachers for Physical Education, the minimum qualification norms for Physical Education teachers referred to in NCTE Regulations dated 3rd November, 2001 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable. For teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State Governments and other school managements shall be applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualifications in respect of such teachers.
10. I am unable to agree with this argument urged on behalf of the petitioners because after the subjects which are stated, there is an expression etc. Also, in the earlier part of the notification with respect to classes VI to VIII (and to which classes petitioners seek appointment as teachers for teaching as per the statement made before me by the counsel for the petitioners) besides other qualifications of graduation and having B.Ed degree, there is a requirement of passing in the Teacher Eligibility Test and which reads as under:-
I. (ii) Class VI-VIII
(a) Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and I-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year B.A./B.Sc. or B.A. Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) AND
(b) Pass in Teach Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
11. That takes us to the final argument urged on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have passed subjects which are similar to the CTET qualification, and therefore, the petitioners should be taken as having CTET qualification. Even this argument is misconceived because it is not for this Court to decide what should be the subjects for different courses and how should there be parity between certain courses/subjects, and further as to what should be qualifications which are required before a person is appointed as a teacher in the school. All these are aspects which specialized bodies consider, the legislature thereafter legislates, and the executive which thereafter implements the legislative Acts. This Court as already stated above is ill-equipped to go into these aspects.
9. Being bound by the aforementioned judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi, we decline to grant the reliefs sought in the present Original Application and the same is dismissed. No costs.
( V.N. Gaur ) ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) November 29, 2013 /sunil/