Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
M-44 vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 30 May, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.3505/2012
Order reserved on 20th day of May 2014
Order pronounced on 30th day of May 2014
Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Rubina Begum
d/o late Mohd. Sharif
r/o J-76, Ashiana Complex
Flat No.103, First Floor
Thokar No.4, Abul Faza Enclave I
New Delhi-25
Also at:
M-44, Abul Fazal Enclave
Jamia Nagar, Okhla
New Delhi-25
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M Rais Farooqui)
Versus
1. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Delhi-2
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman
FC-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma, Delhi
3. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
New Secretariat
IP Estate, New Delhi
..Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. R K Jain for respondent No. 1
Mrs. Renu George for respondent Nos. 2 & 3)
O R D E R
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) respondent No.2 invited applications for the post of Teacher Primary (Urdu) in the year 2007 vide Post Code No.166/2007 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The applicant applied for the said post and participated in the competitive examination on 15.6.2008. When her name was not included in the list of selected candidates, she made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 to know the status of her candidature and the marks obtained by her. On 9.1.2009, she got an information that she had secured 128 marks out of 200 while the last candidate got 118 marks out of 200. Being a departmental candidate, the applicant worked out her right for regularization and filed Original Application No.714/2009. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application in terms of the Order dated 20.8.2010 and directed the respondents to consider her candidature by giving age relaxation. The Order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Honble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1641/2011, which was dismissed on 15.11.2011. After the Order of the Honble High Court, the respondents declared the result of some of the candidates giving them age relaxation but again did not do so in the case of the applicant. She filed Contempt Petition No.384/2012 alleging disobedience of the Order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.714/2009. In reply to the Contempt Petition, respondent No.2 stated that the applicant did not fulfill the educational qualification, as she had not passed the Urdu as secondary language. Nevertheless, the said Contempt Petition was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file fresh Original Application, thus the applicant has filed the present Original Application praying therein:
i) Quash the order No.F1(151)/CC-II/DSSSB/08/ Part/ 3344 dated 08.06.2012 passed by Sh. Jitender Kumar, Dy. Secy. (CC-II), under the respondent no.2;
ii) direct the respondents to give the appointment to the applicant for the Post of Teacher Primary (Urdu) against the post code no.166/07 being eligible candidate having requisite qualification of Urdu as a Subject at Higher Level;
iii) award costs of the proceedings; and
iv) Any other/further order(s) instruction(s) and direction(s) as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. Mr. M. Rais Farooqui, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgments of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Yogesh Dutt v. Director of Education & others (Writ Petition (C) No.11470/2009) decided on 15.7.2013, Mrs. Manju Pal v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & another, 2002 II AD (Delhi) 548 and Shehla Nawab v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & another, (Writ Petition (C) No.2832/1999) decided on 29.7.2011 as also the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan & others (2012) 3 SCC 129 and submitted that once the applicant had studied Urdu language as a subject at the senior secondary level, which is the higher to the secondary level, the respondents could not have denied her appointment. In this regard, paragraph 5.6 of the Original Application filed by the applicant reads as under:-
5.6 Because the applicant passed Urdu as a subject at the Senior Secondary level which is higher to the secondary level and not only this but the applicant also passed her Graduation and ETE with a subject of Urdu, besides the applicant obtained Urdu at Secondary Level at later stage.
3. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Farzana v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others, 2008 IV AD (Delhi) 448 and submitted that the condition of qualifying certain course at secondary level for a particular post in question cannot be considered as arbitrary or discriminatory.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is not in dispute that in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules, i.e. Recruitment Regulations for the post of Teacher Primary (Urdu), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2007), a candidate must have passed Urdu at secondary level. As mentioned in the detailed counter reply filed on behalf of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Recruitment Rules for the post in question read as under:-
Essential:
(i) Senior Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board.
(ii) Two years Diploma/Certificate Course in ETE/JBT or BELED from a recognized Institution.
(iii) Must have passed Urdu as a subject a Secondary level:
Desirable: (i) Computer Knowledge.
6. In Yogesh Dutts case (supra), the Single Bench of the Honble High Court of Delhi viewed that once the petitioner had studied M.A in English, his competence to teach the subject could not be doubted, as even if he had not studied the subject at graduation level, he could not be held ineligible for promotion to the post of TGT (English). For taking such view, his Lordship relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Honble High Court in Mrs. Manju Pal (supra). For easy reference, paragraphs 2, 4 to 8 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-
2. It is not disputed that the aforesaid criteria was a requirement in terms of the notification dated 13.3.2000, but, what the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contend is that a subsequent circular has been issued clarifying that the requirement of the elective subject English is such that the subject English should be a subject in all the three years. The amended requirement/ corrigendum reads as under:-
A Bachelors degree (Pass/hons.) from a recognised University or equivalent having secured at least 45% marks in aggregate in two school subjects of which at least one out of the following should have been at the elective level:
(a) English, (b) Mathematics, (c) Natural/Physical Sc., (d) Social Science.
Note: As per policy the definition of elective in R/Rs has been framed as that the candidate should have studied the main subject concerned as mentioned in the R/Rs of at least 100 marks each in all parts/years of graduation. The election word may also include main subject as practised in different universities. (Circulated vide No.F.DE3(42)/ E.III/99/ 1688-1699 dt. 13.3.2000) xx xx xx xx xx
4. In my opinion, the arguments as urged on behalf of the petitioner must succeed and the petitioner is bound to be appointed as TGT (English) by the respondents. Firstly, assuming that the executive instructions dated 1.10.1999 hold the field even then the ratio of a Division Bench judgment in the case of Manju Pal (supra) will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Manju Pal (supra) are paras 6 to 8 and which read as under:-
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the MCD it has not been stated as to how the study of Hindi as a language at higher secondary or intermediate level by the candidates is more relevant than the study of Hindi as a language in BA pass course for the job requirement. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the Board and the MCD which could justify the stand of the respondents that the study of Hindi as a language at higher secondary level by a candidate has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which object by the study of Hindi at B.A. level by a candidate cannot be achieved. No study or evaluation or analysis has been placed before us to show that the candidates having Hindi as a subject at the secondary level are better qualified and equipped to teach primary students than the candidates having Hindi at the graduate level. In case the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the MCD and the Board is taken to its logical conclusion it will lead to absurd results. There may be a case where a person did not take up Hindi as a language at higher secondary level and took it up at higher levels, namely, B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. Surely, it can not be said that the person who had taken Hindi as a subject at the Graduate level, Masters level or Doctorate level is less qualified for the job than the person who had taken up Hindi as a subject at the higher secondary level. The counter affidavit of the MCD is not at all helpful for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is any valid justification for the stand of the Board and the M.C.D. in considering higher secondary with Hindi as an essential requirement for the post of Primary Assistant Teachers. The invidious distinction made by the Board and the MCD for ignoring candidates with higher qualification is unwarranted and without any valid basis.
7. It is significant to note that nothing is stated in the counter affidavit as to how Hindi at the Higher Secondary level is helpful for teaching primary level students. What is so special about Hindi at the secondary level, which attribute Hindi at higher level is lacking has not been explained in the counter affidavit or the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. Hindi as a language has not been mentioned in the advertisement as a special qualification for imparting education to the students at the primary level. It cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that a candidate possessing higher qualification like B.A. with Hindi or M.A. with Hindi will be less efficient in teaching primary classes than a person possessing lesser qualification such as higher secondary with Hindi.
8. We are supported in our view by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narayan Yadav Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Ors., 1988 (3) SLR Allahabad 42, in which it was held as follows:-
As regards the eligibility of respondent No. 3 for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, the learned counsel for the respondents drew out attention to N.B. (Note)(2) below the rule prescribing minimum qualifications for 'Hindi Teachers for Intermediate' contained in Appendix A which provides as follows:
"The Hindi Teachers may not be required to have a Degree in Sanskrit in those institutions where qualified Sanskrit teacher is available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Court".
The above note clarifies the intention why B.A. with Sanskrit was kept as an essential qualification for a Hindi Teacher for Intermediate Classes. The person should be such who can also teach Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Course. The qualification prescribed for Sanskrit Teacher for Intermediate' is 'M.A. with Sanskrit preferably trained'. As respondent no. 3 is M.A. in Sanskrit, he is fully qualified to teach Sanskrit also. Consequently, respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be disqualified for being appointed teacher in Hindi simply because he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', especially when he is M.A. in Sanskrit and is qualified to teach Sanskrit portion of Hindi Court, so that requirement of 'B.A. with Sanskrit' is not applicable in his case. Moreover, respondent no. 3 may not be having Sanskrit as a subject for his Bachelors' degree. He is, however, having Master's Degree in Sanskrit, which is certainly a higher qualification than B.A. with Sanskrit. Consequently, the claim of respondent no. 3 could not be rejected merely on the ground that he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', when he is admittedly M.A. Sanskrit'. (emphasis underlining) xx xx xx xx xx
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to place reliance upon two judgments before me. First is the judgment in the case of Rakesh Pandey Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. in W.P.(C) No.11058/2009 decided on 31.8.2009 and second in the case of Jainish Kumari (Ms.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2007 IX AD Delhi 153. In my opinion, both the judgments relied upon by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no application to the facts of the present case. The judgment in the case of Rakesh Pandey (supra) only dealt with the issue of there being executive instructions of the electives to be required for all the three years of graduation course, and which argument was accepted. The judgment does not deal with the aspect of invalidity of executive instructions in the presence of notification of the relevant recruitment rules. In any case, the judgment in the case of Manju Pal (supra) will squarely cover the present case because in that judgment it was held that a higher qualification surely entitles a candidate to be appointed and merely because a candidate does not have lesser qualification will not act as a handicap. The judgment in the case of Jainish Kumari (supra) relied upon by the respondents also has no application because the issue in this case was of equivalence of a diploma to B.Ed. degree course, and it was accordingly held in that judgment that concerned authority best knows why equivalence is not granted to a diploma course when taken in comparison with a B.Ed. course.
7. In the case of Mrs. Manju Pal (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court ruled that since nothing was stated in the counter reply as to how the Hindi at the Higher Secondary level is helpful for teaching primary level students. What is so special about Hindi at the secondary level, which attribute Hindi at higher level is lacking has not been explained. Taking such view, the Division Bench quashed the impugned order and directed respondent No.4 to send the recommendation for appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher to the MCD. For easy reference, paragraphs 10 to 12 of the said judgment read as under:-
10. It is significant to note that nothing is stated in the counter affidavit as to how Hindi at the Higher Secondary level is helpful for teaching primary level students. What is so special about Hindi at the secondary level, which attribute Hindi at higher level is lacking has not been explained in the counter affidavit or the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. Hindi as a language has not been mentioned in the advertisement as a special qualification for imparting education to the students at the primary level. It cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that a candidate possessing higher qualification like B.A. with Hindi or M.A. with Hindi will be less efficient in teaching primary classes than a person possessing lesser qualification such as higher secondary with Hindi.
11. We are supported in our view by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narayan Yadav Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Ors., 1988 (3) SLR Allahabad 42, in which it was held as follows:-
As regards the eligibility of respondent No. 3 for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, the learned counsel for the respondents drew out attention to N.B. (Note)(2) below the rule prescribing minimum qualifications for 'Hindi Teachers for Intermediate' contained in Appendix A which provides as follows:
"The Hindi Teachers may not be required to have a Degree in Sanskrit in those institutions where qualified Sanskrit teacher is available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Court".
The above note clarifies the intention why B.A. with Sanskrit was kept as an essential qualification for a Hindi Teacher for Intermediate Classes. The person should be such who can also teach Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Course. The qualification prescribed for Sanskrit Teacher for Intermediate' is 'M.A. with Sanskrit preferably trained'. As respondent no. 3 is M.A. in Sanskrit, he is fully qualified to teach Sanskrit also. Consequently, respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be disqualified for being appointed teacher in Hindi simply because he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', especially when he is M.A. in Sanskrit and is qualified to teach Sanskrit portion of Hindi Court, so that requirement of 'B.A. with Sanskrit' is not applicable in his case. Moreover, respondent no. 3 may not be having Sanskrit as a subject for his Bachelors' degree. He is, however, having Master's Degree in Sanskrit, which is certainly a higher qualification than B.A. with Sanskrit. Consequently, the claim of respondent no. 3 could not be rejected merely on the ground that he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', when he is admittedly M.A. Sanskrit'.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 4th October, 1999 is set aside. Since the appellant has higher marks than the persons who have been selected in OBC category, we direct the respondent Board to send the recommendation for appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher to the M.C.D. On receipt of the recommendation, the M.C.D. shall appoint the appellant as Assistant Primary Teacher.
8. In Farzanas case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1, the Honble High Court viewed that the Primary Teachers in MCD, who are required to teach students at primary level, i.e., upto Standard V, are to be initiated into a language from scratch, namely, from alphabets and then into the basic grammar, for which purpose the teacher is required to be equipped in a specific mold. Their Lordships viewed that it was the case of the MCD that keeping this in mind the prescription of studying Hindi language at secondary level is provided in the recruitment rules. Taking such view, their Lordships ruled that even if the appellant had studied Hindi at higher level, i.e., while passing the Bachelors of Commerce (Pass Course) examination from the University of Delhi, since he had not studied the subject at secondary level the respondents were justified in considering his eligibility for the post of Primary Teacher. For easy reference, paragraphs 2, 11, 20 and 21 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-
2. Apart from other qualifications prescribed, including educational qualifications, the notification issued for inviting applications for appointment to these posts stipulates the following essential qualification:-
(iv) Must have passed in Hindi as a subject at Secondary Level. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not study Hindi as a subject at secondary level. However, she claims that she had studied Hindi language as a subject while acquiring a higher degree and, therefore, it be deemed that she has the necessary qualification in Hindi as a subject at secondary level also. The petitioner had taken Hindi as a subject while passing the Bachelors of Commerce (Pass Course) examination from the University of Delhi. 11. Learned counsel for the MCD countered the aforesaid submission by arguing that a conscious decision was taken to prescribe the aforesaid qualification as study of Hindi language at secondary level was more relevant and important for a person who was to teach primary students. His submission was that it is at this level a student undertakes the study of grammar, knowledge of which was essential for teaching students in primary classes and as such grammar was not taught in higher levels. He further argued that the judgment of the Division Bench in Mrs. Manju Pal (supra) was given as in that case MCD had not explained the rational for prescribing such an essential qualification for the post of primary teacher, as is clear from the reading of the said judgment itself. On the other hand, in the present case, the rational for such a prescription was spelled out in detail in the counter affidavit. This being a policy decision, should not be interfered with, was the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent. He also sought to argue that the qualification prescribed had rational with the objective sought to be achieved and there was no discrimination involved, as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that such an issue was dealt with by another Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (A.K. Sikri, J.) was a member and the case was decided on 26.11.2002. He further argued that the issue was no more res integra and was specifically dealt with by the Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 548 and number of other decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court were also referred. 20. It is clear that in the present case we are concerned with the recruitment to the post of Primary Teachers in MCD. These teachers are required to teach students at primary level i.e. up to Standard V. These small children are to be given basic education in Hindi language. Rather, they are to be initiated into this language from scratch, namely, from alphabets and then into the basic grammar, for which purpose the teacher is required to be equipped in a specific mold. It is the case of the MCD that keeping this in mind the prescription of studying Hindi language at secondary level is provided in the recruitment rules. This is explained in the counter affidavit in rather greater details, as would be evident from the following averments contained therein :-
12. It is submitted that the teachers being required to teach children at the primary level in Delhi there is nothing irrational in the requirement of passing Hindi at the secondary level being the popularly understood local language as well as the medium of instruction. At the Primary Level one teacher is required to teach all the classes from I to V which includes imparting education in the language subject of Hindi as well which is prescribed for all the five years. The focus of language education at this stage is to provide the building blocks to lay a strong foundation on which the child can build in the future. While teaching Hindi to students of primary classes it is necessary that the teacher be himself aware of and well conversant with the basic grammatical skills of the language such as alphabets, word formation, spelling and recognition of writing symbols, sentence formation and correction, singular-plural, masculine-feminine gender, present-past-future tenses, synonyms, antonyms, usage of phrases, verbs, nouns, adjectives etc. There is an appreciable difference in the purpose, curriculum and manner in which the language course of Hindi is structured at the secondary, senior secondary and higher level. Even though a person may possess valuable written or spoken skills of the language which he may acquire at a higher level yet absence of knowledge of the basic and rudimentary building blocks of the same may prove to be detrimental while teaching small children the basic alphabets of the same language in a simplistic yet interesting manner. Superior knowledge of scriptures or the ability to write reports, features complex essays or translate complex passages may not be a adequate substitute for the basic knowledge of grammar and the skill set which is exclusive to the secondary level and essential for teaching the same to the children at the primary level. Copies of the syllabii of Hindi as it is taught at the secondary level and senior secondary level along with the paper schematic and syllabus for the B Com (Pass) level are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure 3.
13. A perusal of the same shows that it is only at the Class X that the basic grammatical skills of the language which constitute its essential building blocks are taught and tested. Focus at the higher levels is on study of poetry, scriptures, different forms of the language as it stood in different times and practical use of the language etc. and it cannot be simplistically concluded by an empirical/comparative evaluation that study of Hindi at BCom (Pass) is greater than/better than or a substitute for study of Hindi at the secondary level. Neither can it be assumed that a person who has studied Hindi at the BCom level would be equipped with the skill set of Hindi prescribed at the secondary level (the skill sets, curriculum, methodology of study, importance attached to the study of the subject all being different) and such a presumption in the absence of an analysis of the course contents, teaching methodology etc. would not be correct. It is only in case of courses such as M Tech which one is allowed to do only after B Tech that M Tech can be considered higher than B Tech. In the case of Hindi language it is possible for a person to have not studied the same at the secondary level but only at the senior secondary levels or at one of these levels and a higher level. Even across various levels the curriculum is different depending upon whether Hindi is studied as a compulsory or as an optional subject and at the higher levels it is different depending also upon whether Hindi is studied at the secondary level or the senior secondary level. As mentioned earlier a person having working/functional knowledge of Hindi at the Higher Level may not be equipped with the knowledge of the grammatical skills and the manner in which they are taught to the children at the secondary level. It is respectfully submitted that whether Hindi at secondary level is suitable for teaching students at the primary level or Hindi at higher level is suitable for the said purpose, whether knowledge of Hindi studied at Higher level is greater than or a substitute for Hindi studied at the secondary level are all technical questions the answers of which best ought to be left to technical/specialist bodies. Merely because a candidate has studied Hindi at a B Com level as in the instant case does not imply that he ipso facto fulfills the eligibility criterion of having passed Hindi at the secondary level as it is possible to study Hindi even at the higher level without passing the same at the secondary level. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the Petitioner did not pass Hindi at the secondary level. It is stated that the Petitioner has qualified the Hindi language as a subject while passing the B Com (Pass) course. Though the marksheets attached with the Petition are unclear it is submitted that the curriculum of Hindi prescribed at the B Com (Pass) level is completely different from that at the secondary level. The B Com (Pass) course being essentially a commerce course the thrust in papers related to that subject and the study of a language is required only as one of the optional subjects that too not for the duration of the entire course as part of study of one of the modern Indian languages. In view of the different skill set acquired by the candidates at different levels and keeping in mind the fact that the small children need to be taught the basic skills rather than scriptures the prescription of study of Hindi at a secondary level has a direct nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and therefore the said qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary.
21. We find sufficient justification/rational in providing for the aforesaid qualifying course at secondary level for the post in question. It is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and specific objective is sought to be achieved thereby for which sufficient justification/rational is given by the MCD. Once the respondents are able to satisfy such a rationality, further probe into a policy decision like this in prescribing these qualifications in the recruitment rules, which are of statutory nature, is not permitted as per the dictum noticed in various judgments in the foregoing paragraphs.
9. The view taken by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the aforementioned case is that the study of Hindi language at secondary level was more relevant and important for a person who was to teach primary students. At this level, the student undertakes the study of grammar, knowledge of which was essential for teaching students in primary classes and as such grammar was not taught in higher levels. We do not know whether a candidate who studied senior secondary level would be capable to do so or not.
10. In Chandrakala Trivedis case (supra), the Apex Court viewed that the finding of the High Court that the higher qualification is not equivalent to the qualification of passing senior secondary examination could not be appreciated. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment read as under:-
7. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given a finding that the higher qualification is not the substitute for the qualification of Senior Secondary or Intermediate. In the instant case, we fail to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to the extent that it does not consider higher qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary examination even in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected.
8. The word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence.
11. In view of the aforementioned judgments of the Honble High Court of Delhi and Honble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that before adjudging the suitability of the applicant for the post in question, the respondents need to verify whether having studied Urdu at senior secondary level, the applicant would be capable to impart initial education to primary students or not.
12. In the circumstances, we dispose of the present Original Application with direction to the respondents to obtain expert opinion regarding the capability of the candidate, who studied the subject at senior secondary school to teach primary students and if the opinion is in favour of the applicant to take a final view regarding her eligibility / suitability on the basis of such opinion. Needful should be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( A. K. Bhardwaj ) ( Sudhir Kumar ) Member (J) Member (A) /sunil/