Delhi High Court
Ms. Pratibha vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 22 November, 2001
Author: Sharda Aggarwal
Bench: Sharda Aggarwal
JUDGMENT Khan, J.
1. R-3 issued circular dated 25.6.1996 inviting applications for appointment to PGT (Vocational). The minimum educational qualification prescribed was Graduation and a Diploma. Petitioner challenged this in OA No. 1560/96 on the ground that eligibility prescribed was lesser than the one stipulated by CBSE affiliation bye-laws which were mandatory and binding. She accordingly prayed for quashment of circular and regularisation of her services.
2. Respondents 1-3 opposed this on the plea that CBSE was an autonomous body and its affiliation bye-laws had no bearing on the matter and that it was their prerogative to prescribe the requisite qualification under Rules for the post.
3. Tribunal upheld the plea of these respondents and dismissed the OA by impugned order. Hence this petition.
4. L/C for petitioner, Mr. Bhardwaj has taken us through various CBSE Bye-Laws to show that a higher qualification was prescribed for teachers in vocational stream. He claimed that this was binding on R1-3 and they could not have prescribed a lesser qualification for the post to consider candidates with lesser qualifications.
5. Petitioner's case appears misdirected through and through and suffers from a serious misconception. It must be made clear at the very outset that it is the employer's prerogative to prescribe qualifications for the post and in the present case relevant recruitment rules prescribe graduation/Diploma. Therefore, if R1-3 have proceeded to make selection under the qualification prescribed by Rules, their action can't be faulted. Nor can it be said or held that they were required to be guided by CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws.
6. CBSE is an autonomous examining body. Its bye-laws are meant to regulate its own functioning and the affiliation bye-laws governing its grant or refusal of affiliation to a school. Anything laid down or prescribed in these bye-laws has relevance for affiliation purposes only and nothing more. Illustratively, if requirements laid down in these are not satisfied, it is for the CBSE to refuse affiliation to a school on that basis. But the bye-laws of the Board by no stretch of logic or imagination could be credited the character of recruitment rules or for that matter applied to appoint it for a post which was governed by its own set of Rules. The question of these bye-laws being binding on R1-3 for purpose of appointment to posts in Government Schools does not arise.
7. We also fail to appreciate how petitioner was prejudiced by all this. She admittedly possessed a higher qualification and enjoyed a better prospect in selection in that strength. Nor could she be credited with any locus to suggest a qualification for the post, more so when she had failed to throw any challenge to relevant rules prescribing the impugned qualifications.
8. We accordingly find no merit in this petition which is dismissed and Tribunal order affirmed.