Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Prakash Singh vs The Union Of India on 22 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3073/2009
MA-2462/2009
New Delhi this the 22nd day of February, 2010.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member(J)
Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A)
Sh. Prakash Singh,
S/o Sh. Kishor Singh,
R/o HC-337 Ganga Nagar,
Mawana Road,
Meerut. Applicant
(through Sh. V.P.S. Tyagi, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Union of India
(through Secretary)
Ministry of HRD,
New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
(KVS)
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110602.
3. The Dy. Commission (Adm)
KVS 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110602. Respondents
(through Sh. U.N. Singh, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) The applicant who belongs to OBC category having passed his school level examinations in 1991 and 1993 also cleared his graduation in Science Stream ,Physics, Chemistry and Maths, (PCM), in the second division from the CCS University, Meerut, after a three year degree course examination held in 1997. Subsequently in the year 2000 he passed B.Ed. as well in second division.
2. By the Notification of 15-21 November 2008 in employment News the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) invited applications, inter alia, for the posts of TGT (Maths) under Post Code No. 36in pre-revised pay scale of rs.5500-9000/-. The upper age limit was 35 years and the last date of receipt of applications was 15.12.2008. The vacancies in TGT (Maths) were for different categories including 16 for OBC.
3. The essential qualifications laid down for candidates were as under:-
ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
i) Four years Integrated Degree Course of Regional Institute of Education of NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate or Second Class Bachelors Degree with at least 50% marks in the concerned subject(s) and in aggregate including elective and languages in the combination of subjects as under :
S.No. Short name of Post/subject Post Code Subject(s) Subject Code
1. TGT (Math.) 36 Maths with any two of the following subjects :-
Physics/Chemistry/Electronics/ Computer Science/Statistics 06
ii) B.Ed. or equivalent degree from a recognized University.
iii) Proficiency in teaching in Hindi, and English Desirable: Knowledge of Computer Application,
4. Part-IV of the Notification (Page-27) indicated the mode of Selection and Scheme of Written Examination. The written examination was to be held on 15.02.2009 and consisted of an objective type General Paper of 120 marks, a descriptive type of paper on Language Proficiency of 40 marks with difficulty of + 2 Level and a descriptive Subject Paper of 120 marks with difficulty level of graduation.
5. The applicant submits that he was issued an admit card (Annexure A-7) which was for the subject of Maths, for the written examination, and having qualified in the same he was called for interview on 30.06.2009 in terms of the letter at Annexure A-8 dated 09.06.2009.This letter spelt out the documents that were to be brought in original for verification along with one set of photo copies at the time of attending interview. These included 2nd Class Graduate Degree & marks sheet with minimum of 50 % marks in concerned subject(s) and in aggregate including elective and languages in combination of subject as per eligibility criteria Provisional/Degree Certificate. The candidates were told that they must satisfy themselves that they possess the requisite qualification as published in the advertisement in Employment News dated 15-21 November 2008. It was made clear that if they are found not eligible at a later stage or even after conduct of interview, their candidature would be rejected and they would not have any claim for the post.
6. The applicant has submitted that he is aggrieved that he was not empanelled in the select list whereas another OBC candidate with lower percentage of marks than him was included which has been admitted in the information supplied under RTI Act 2005 by the impugned order dated 15-16/10/2009. He has also been informed that he was not eligible to the post of TGT (Maths) in KVS because he had secured 221/450 marks in Chemistry at graduation level. The applicant has drawn attention to Annexure A-9 giving details of subjects and marks obtained by him at the time of Graduation in the Science Stream with PCM and at the B.Ed. level. It is seen therefrom that the applicant had obtained a total of 298/450 marks in Maths, 257/450 in Physics, 221/450 in Chemistry and 62/100 in GEN.ENG. In B.Ed. he had obtained a total of 441/800 marks in various courses of theory and practical which was 55.12%. The applicant has pointed out that he had thus got 66.22% in Maths for the post of TGT for which he had applied against the required 50% and in aggregate of all the subjects he had got 57.79% against the required aggregate of 50%. His percentage even after including the marks of Chemistry was more than 57% in aggregate. Therefore, he complains as to how the low percentage of 49.11% in Chemistry alone could have affected his eligibility for the post of TGT (Maths) because he has neither applied for TGT (Science) nor for any TGT post other than Maths.
7. It is argued that the marks secured in Chemistry have no nexus with the selection process though it may be so for graduates who have obtained second division in Chemistry and Botany. It was wrong to empanel another OBC candidate who has secured less marks. The applicant therefore seeks directions upon the respondents to set aside the selection process held as per the advertisement appearing in the Employment News dated 21.11.2008 and selection process held in pursuance thereto. He further seeks directions upon them to consider his candidate for empanelment as TGT (Maths) in accordance with law and eligibility for the same.
8. The respondents by their counter-affidavit have informed that the Essential Qualifications are based upon the Recruitment Rules for the post of TGT (Maths). The applicant was not eligible for empanelment because he had less than 50% marks in Chemistry at the graduate level. If he was issued an admit card for the written exam and interview that does not imply that he was eligible, as a candidate is provisionally allowed to appear. But final selection is subject to eligibility for the post as the verification of certificates is done at the time of interview. It was made clear to the candidates in the Notification published in Employments News dated 15-21 November 2008, at the very beginning of the Notification, that candidates should ensure that they fulfill all eligibility conditions for admission to the examination which shall be provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. It was further emphasized that mere issue of admit card will not imply that the candidature has been finally cleared. It was informed that the KVS takes up verification of eligibility conditions with reference to original documents only after the candidates have qualified for interview/personality test. A perusal of the Notification annexed by the applicant at Annexure A-6 confirms the above. We have already seen from the letter calling the applicant for interview that the candidates had been cautioned therein once again in this regard. The respondents say that the applicant cannot take advantage of his own fault and if he was ineligible, it would be illegal to declare him successful.
9. The respondents have further clarified by their additional-affidavit that in the Notification the essential qualifications for Post Code-36 viz. TGT (Maths) mentioned the subjects against TGT (Maths) as Maths with any of the two following subjects:- Physics/Chemistry/ electronics/Computer Science/ Statistics. The qualification spelt out was second class Bachelor Degree with at least 50% in the concerned subject (s) and in aggregate including elective and languages in the combination of subjects. Accordingly, the applicant, whose subjects in addition to Maths were Physics and Chemistry, was required to possess at least 50% marks in Chemistry as well. This has been prescribed as the TGT (Maths) teacher is required to teach Maths with any of the two concerned subjects, which in the applicants case were Physics and Chemistry.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings.
11. While the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention extensively to the averments in the OA and strenuously argued that the applicant could not have been denied placement on the select panel when he had done well in the examination conducted by the respondents and had achieved much higher percentage than others of his category at Graduation level. Besides, the post was of TGT (Maths) and his candidature could not have been rejected after holding examination as well as interview merely because in the subject of Chemistry he had less than 50% marks in Graduation. The learned counsel for the respondents has asserted that the applicant was not eligible as per the essential qualifications which were not met by him because of his lower percentage than required in the subject of Chemistry. Sufficient care to educate the candidates before they applied and even thereafter had been taken. But if they are ineligible they would have no right to selection.
12. We are inclined to agree with the stand taken by the respondents. As per the Essential Qualification prescribed the concerned subjects included chemistry in respect of the applicant as his subjects were physics and chemistry along with Maths. Since the applicant had less than 50% marks in the subject of Chemistry he was not eligible. It is well settled as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. UOI & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 54 that:-
Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In the absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by the Supreme Court, would be the last date for filing the application.
Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cut-off date. He was, therefore, not eligible for the post in question.
13. In view of the above, this application cannot succeed and is therefore dismissed. No costs.
(N.D. Dayal) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member(A) Member(J) /vv/