Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepanshu vs Gnctd on 18 March, 2024
1 OA No. 1625/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.1625/2022
Order reserved on: 08.03.2024
Order pronounced on: 18.03.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Deepanshu, Aged about 31 years,
S/o Sh. Subhash Goyal,
R/o 147, Upper Ground Floor,
Pocket-9, Sector-22,
Rohini, Delhi - 110 086.
Post: Vice Principal, Group -A, and 106 others.
....Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Shubham Bahl,
Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. Shakib Malik)
Versus
1. The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
Government of NCT of Delhi,
6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle,
Civil Lines, New Delhi - 110 054.
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its
Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
3. Directorate of Education through
Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, New Delhi-110 054.
4. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) through its
Secretary, UPSC Bhavan,
Shahjahan Road, UPSC, Man Singh Road Area,
New Delhi - 110 069.
... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Amit Anand for R-1 to R-3,
Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. Amit Sinha for R-4.
2 OA No. 1625/2022
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Brief facts, as narrated in the OA and argued by learned counsel for the applicants are as under:-
1.1 The applicants have been working as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) [Computer Science] and have unblemished record to their credit. 1.2 Vide impugned Notification dated 09.10.2018, the respondents notified the Recruitment Rules [RRs] for the post of Vice Principal in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which, inter alia, provide as under:-
"5. Power to relax: - Where the Government is of the opinion that if necessary or expedient so to do, it may, be an order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, and in consultation with Union Public Service Commission relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.
...
Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits: (7) - Essential :-
(I) Master's Degree from a recognized
University/Institute;
(II) Bachelor of Education from a recognized
University: and
(III) Two years experience as Post Graduate Teacher; or Three years' experience as Trained Graduate Teacher.
Note 1: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission. For reasons to be recorded in writing. In case of candidates otherwise well qualified.
Note 2:The qualification(s) regarding experience is/are relaxable at the discretion of the Union 3 OA No. 1625/2022 Public Service Commission. For reasons to be recorded in writing in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. I at any stage or selection the Union Public Service Commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities possessing the requisite experience are not likely to be available to fill up the vacancies reserved for them.
Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promotes: (8) Not applicable.
Method of recruitment: Whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/absorption and percentage of vacancies to be filled by various methods: (10) 50% by promotion, 50% by direct recruitment."
1.3 Prior to the current RRs for the post of Vice Principal, RRs for the said post, as notified on 19.02.1991, were in existence. As per earlier RRs, the method of recruitment was 100% by way of promotion whereas by way of current RRs, the method of recruitment has been changed from 100% by promotion to 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Though as per the current RRs the applicants are eligible for promotion to the post of Vice Principal, however, for direct recruitment, an essential qualification of B.Ed Degree has been incorporated in the current RRs. 1.4 As the applicants possess all the valid qualifications as TGT & PGT (Computer Science), have been teaching Computer Science for the last several years and have sufficient experience of teaching, insistence on the condition of possessing B.Ed Degree for being eligible to the post of Vice 4 OA No. 1625/2022 Principal for direct recruitment is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
1.5 Advertisement No.10/2022 dated May, 2022 issued by UPSC inviting applications for direct recruitment/ appointment to the post of Vice Principal is unconstitutional as it fails to exempt TGT/PGT (Computer Science) from possessing B.Ed Degree to apply for the aforesaid post under direct recruitment quota. Aggrieved, the applicants made repeated representations to the respondents followed by Legal Notice dated 08.06.2022, but the respondents have not replied to any of the representations and/or Legal Notice served upon them.
1.6 Aggrieved of the action of the respondents in not exempting the applicants from possessing B.Ed Degree enabling them to apply for the post of Vice Principal, they have filed the present OA seeking the following relief:-
Main Relief "(i) Set aside the impugned Recruitment Rules for the post of Vice Principal in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (as notified vide Notification dated 09.10.2018) to the extent they fail to exempt TGT (Computer Science) as well as PGT (Computer Science) from possessing B.Ed.
Degree for direct requirement to the post of Vice Principal in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi;
5 OA No. 1625/2022
(ii) Set aside the impugned Advertisement No.10/2022 dated May, 2022, issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), to the extent it fails to exempt the TGT (Computer Science) as well as PGT (Computer Science) from possessing B.Ed. Degree for direct requirement on the post of Vice Principal (Vacancy No.22051009328) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi ;
(iii) Direct the respondents to allow the applicants herein to appear and participate in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Vice Principal in Directorate of Education (Vacancy No.22051009328) and, accordingly, consider the candidature of the applicants for appointment on the post of Vice Principal in Directorate of Education with all consequential benefits, without insisting on the condition that the applicants must possess B.Ed. Degree;
(iv) Allow the present application with costs in favour of the applicants; and
(v) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the favour of the applicants."
Interim Relief:
"Direct the respondents to accept the application forms (online or hard copies) of the applicants herein for appointment on the post of Vice Principal in Directorate of Education (Vacancy No.22051009328) and allow the applicants to appear/participate in the recruitment process (including written examination, etc.)"
2. Per contra, respondent nos. 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit denying the claim of the applicants and have stated as under:-
2.1 Contentions of the applicants are misleading and misconceived inasmuch as the RRs for the post of Vice 6 OA No. 1625/2022 Principal have been amended vide Notification dated 15.10.2018 with prior approval of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, GNCTD following due procedure and in consultation with UPSC. As per column (8) of the said RRs, age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits are not applicable for departmental promotion, hence, TGT (CS) & PGT (CS) are eligible for promotion to the post of Vice Principal. However, there is no concept of feeder cadre in open competitive examination. In direct recruitment, candidates from all the States of India are eligible to appear in the recruitment process subject to meeting minimum requisite eligibility criterion. Had the applicants possessed the requisite qualifications, they were well within their right to apply for the post of Vice Principal. Since they do not meet the requisite qualification, they cannot compel the respondents to exempt them from possessing essential qualification of B.Ed to be eligible to apply for the post in question.
3. Respondent no.4 (UPSC) has also filed counter affidavit stating as under:-
3.1 UPSC is a Constitutional body established under Article 315-323, Chapter-II, Part XIV of the Constitution of India and has enjoined upon them the solemn duty of making recruitment to all Civil Services and posts under the Government of India. The applicants have no cause of action 7 OA No. 1625/2022 to invoke the jurisdiction of judicial review against the UPSC inasmuch as no enforceable right of the applicants or any rule or binding instructions have been violated/infringed by the action of the replying respondent. Moreover, the applicants do not have any right to have a particular set of RRs or service conditions. It is trite law that framing of RRs or amendment thereof is the prerogative of the Executive as per its requirement and the employees/candidates do not have a right to claim the RRs in a particular manner. It is also trite law that the rule applicable in case of selection/appointment is the one which is in existence on the date of initiation of recruitment process and, therefore, contention of the applicants that there was some consideration within the department for amendment or otherwise in the RRs is misconceived and has no bearing on the recruitment process already initiated.
3.2 Though the applicants have challenged the impugned Advertisement No.10/2022, but have failed to implead those candidates who have been eligible in terms of the current RRs, being necessary parties. In case this Tribunal passes any adverse order, rights of such persons are likely to be affected. Thus, the instant OA is not maintainable for non-
impleadment of necessary parties.
8 OA No. 1625/2022
4. We have heard Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. Shakib Malik, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for R-1 to R-3 and Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel for R-4 and have perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants have also filed written submissions raising more or less the same averments as have already been taken in the OA. However, learned counsel for the respondents has not chosen to file any written submission.
6. Having gone through the pleadings, we find that the applicants are aggrieved of the Notification dated 15.10.2018 as per which the RRs have been revised. As per the earlier RRs, promotion from the post of TGT/PGT to Vice Principal was 100% by promotion, which has now been modified to be filled 50% by promotion and 50% through direct recruitment as per new RRs. Qualifications prescribed for 50% promotional quota remain the same as they were before implementation of the new RRs. However, for qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment, there is an added element of B.Ed. The applicants, who are otherwise eligible to appear through DR quota, are aggrieved of the fact that they are unable to apply against the said quota of 50% as they do not possess the qualification of B.Ed. Their stand is that at the 9 OA No. 1625/2022 time of recruitment they were not required to have this qualification, hence, it is unfair on the part of the respondents to add this qualification in the direct recruitment quota. 6.1 The thrust of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the respondents have added the qualification of B.Ed for the post of Vice Principal to be recruited through open market recruitment, which has deprived the applicants from applying against the said quota. We feel that educational requirement for a post and the recruitment rules for filling up any post are the exclusive prerogative of the respondents, being a policy matter which has to be decided by the respondents keeping in view the jo content and other requirements of the post. It is not for the judicial fora to interfere with any such decision unless the same is proven to be in violation of the Constitutional provisions or any other laws on the subject. The perceived grievance of the applicants is that 100% of the vacancies of the post of Vice Principal were earlier being filled up by way of promotion whereas the promotee quota has now shrunk to only 50%. We do not find this argument tenable as it is a policy decision taken by the respondents in view of their administrative requirements particularly the need to infuse fresh blood into the system.
10 OA No. 1625/20226.2 It is also seen that the applicants had sought interim relief to the extent of accepting their application forms (online or hard copies) for appointment to the post of Vice Principal exempting them from possessing B.Ed qualification. However, this Tribunal, taking stock of totality of facts and circumstances of the case including the RRs (old and revised) as also the case law on the subject, declined the prayer for interim relief. The aforesaid order was challenged by the applicants before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of WP(C) No.10796/2022 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.07.2022. However, the Tribunal was requested to dispose of the pending OA expeditiously.
6.3 Taking an overall view of the matter, it is felt that no indefeasible right of the applicants has been violated by the respondents by way of revising RRs for the post of Vice Principal. They were well within their rights to do so. As far as the applicants are concerned, they have a perceived grievance because of the fact that whereas the post of Vice Principal was filled up 100% by promotion quota as per the earlier RRs, the same has now been revised to 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruits. Here again, the qualification of B.Ed prescribed for direct recruits cannot be challenged by the applicants as no similar qualification has been prescribed 11 OA No. 1625/2022 against the promotee quota. Had this condition been imposed against the promotee quota, the applicants perhaps had a case to argue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the current OA lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) 'na'