Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pankaj Kumar Varshney vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 14 July, 2023
1
Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2328/2019
This the 14th day of July, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. Pankaj Kumar Varshneya (All Group 'B')
Seeking Recruitment as TGT (CS)
Roll No. 13800366
Aged about 37 years
S/o Sh. Arvind Kumar
R/o S/o Vijaya Rani
RZ-90, 3rd Floor Front Side,
Madanpuri, Gali No. 11,
West Sagarpur, New Delhi - 110046
2. Vandana,
Seeking Recruitment as TGT (CS)
Roll No. 13827281
Aged about 31 years
W/o Sh. Shammy Yadav
D/o Sh. Purushotam Yadav
R/o RZ-15A, new Roshanpura,
Najafgrah, New Delhi - 110043
3. Seema Devi
Seeking Recruitment as TGT (CS)
Roll No. 13823463
Aged about 32 years
W/o Sh. Nadan Singh
D/o Sh. Jai Singh
R/o Jagbir General Store,
VPO : Issapur, New Delhi - 73
4. Priya,
Seeking Recruitment as TGT (CS)
Roll No. 13854570
Aged about 36 years
W/o Sh. Dinesh kumar
D/o Sh. Narender Kumar
R/o Vill: Chauhan Joshi,
Bahalgarh, Sonepat,
Haryana - 131021
5. Sonia Goyal,
Seeking Recruitment as TGT (CS)
Roll No. 13807144
2
Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
Aged about 31 years
W/o Sh. Rohit Garg
D/o Sh. Devander
R/o 837/5, Street No 5A,
Patel Nagar, Gurgaon,
Haryana
6. Mayank Chandela
Seeking Recruitment as TGT (CS)
Roll No 13818069
Aged about 33 years
S/o Sh. Brij Mohan Chandela
R/o H-65, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi - 110008
....Applicants
[By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal]
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Chairman
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi - 92
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi - 54
...Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav]
3
Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A):-
The applicants are aspirants for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Computer Science), selection process for which was initiated during the year 2014. Their claim is that they were successful in the said selection examination and their name was placed on the list of successful candidates. Subsequently, an offer of appointment was also issued in their favour. On a later date, some extraneous objections were raised with respect to their educational qualifications and the respondents did not take the selection and the offer of appointment of the applicants to its logical conclusion. Aggrieved by what they have termed as the inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicants seek the following reliefs in the instant Original Application:-
"i) To direct respondents to appoint the applicants as TGT (Computer Science) as per their merit and offer of appointment with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and seniority etc. from the date of appointment of similarly placed persons.
ii) To declare that action of respondents in delaying the appointment of applicants to the post of TGT (Computer Science) as illegal and arbitrary and issue appropriate directions for appointment of applicants to the said post of TGT (Computer Science) with all consequential benefits.
iii) To allow the OA with exemplary cost and any other order may also be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."4
Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
2. Pursuant to notice the respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit vehemently opposing the prayer of the applicants.
3. During the course of the arguments, Mr. Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to a judgment dated 27.04.2023 passed in OA No.2654/2017 along with a bunch of other Original Applications and submitted that the issue being agitated in the present Original Application has been conclusively adjudicated upon in the said OA. In fact, the facts of OA No. 708/2019 were taken on record by considering it as a lead case while rendering the said judgment. Shri Singal, learned counsel highlights that the subject of the said OAs was also selection to the post of TGT (Computer Science) bearing post code No.192/14, highlighting that this is precisely the post code which is subject of the present OA. This fact has also been admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents specifically in reply to para 4.7, which reads as under:-
"4.7 That the Candidature of the applicants are under consideration for his higher qualification and the matter of the higher qualification is sub judice before the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA no. 2652/2017."
4. Mr. Singal, learned counsel submits that against the background of this judgment no further arguments in the matter are called for.
5Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
5. Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents while agreeing that the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant is on the subject of post of TGT (Computer Science) post code No. 192/14 distinguishes it by submitting that the prayer and the relief is specific to the applicants and is to be adjudicated upon on the basis of facts and circumstances of the particular applicants and as they have been adduced before the court.
6. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel draws our attention to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8500-8501 of 2001, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court had held that adjudication of an issue or dispute is to be strictly on the basis of accepted and established documents on record. An internal discussion or consultation even if forming the part of the official record can certainly not be a basis of arriving at a conclusion as such a consultation and discussion cannot be integral to the decision. He reiterates that internal consultation is purely a step in the decision making process and not the decision per se. He argues that while the applicants may feel entitled to establish the validity of their qualification on the basis of these internal consultations the final decision as arrived at is that the qualification they possess could not be the basis for determining the eligibility of the applicants to hold the post of TGT (Computer Science). He empathetically states that 6 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 the applicants are obliged to meet the qualification set forth in the Recruitment Rules and no deviation therefrom can be allowed. He relies upon another case titled Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiaz Ahmad and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11853-11854 of 2018, wherein the court had held that Recruitment Rules carry a statutory force and cannot be compromised.
7. We have given a patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties. We have also meticulously gone through the record. Besides giving a reading to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel, we have given a careful reading to the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 27.04.2023, on the basis of which the learned counsel for the applicants seeks relief and reference to which has been made in one of the preceding paragraphs. For a holistic understanding of the issue, it would be worthwhile to quote the entire judgment verbatim:-
"All the O.As. have been taken together having been filed with the same cause of action and are disposed of by this common order. The facts of O.A. No. 708/2019 have been taken as the lead case.
2. An advertisement for the post of TGT (Computer Science), Post Code No. 192/14, was issued by the respondents. The Notification prescribed essential qualification to be Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University or Graduation in Computer Science from a recognized University or BE/B.Tech. (Computer Science/ Information Technology) from a recognized University or Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication & Technology, Govt. of India. The applicants in O.A. No. 708/2019, who were 7 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 Graduates with MCA, applied for the same and were issued admit cards for written test to be held on 21.05.2017. They appeared in the written examination and were shortlisted for Post Code No.192/14. They were asked to upload e-dossiers as per the schedule. They were further declared qualified for appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science), Post Code No. 192/14, and their dossiers were sent to the user department for issuance of offers of appointment along with others. However, despite inordinate delay, they were not issued offers of appointment. The applicants came to know that certain issues have been raised regarding their eligibility in terms of the educational qualification. Subsequently, the applicants were issued offers of appointment by the respondents. They were also sent for medical examination between June to August, 2018. However, they have not yet been permitted to join, whereas a number of other similarly placed candidates, who were lower in merit, were allowed to join.
3. It is the contention of the applicants that although they possess Graduation Degree and also MCA, they have not been appointed, whereas the respondents in terms of the Notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) dated 01.03.1995, have considered those candidates who have passed only the 'A' level course from DOEACC, which is considered equivalent to the Advance Diploma course for the purpose of appointment. It is submitted that MCA Degree is a full three years duration course and on completion of first year of MCA, some Universities award Advanced Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA), which is considered at par with 'A' Level Examination under DOEACC and, thus, the respondents have considered even those who have completed only 'A' Level Course from the DOEACC but did not consider the applicants, who are Graduates and have acquired three years' MCA Degree. It is further submitted that the applicants not only possess required qualification, but also possess higher qualification than 'A' Level Course of DOEACC and are, therefore, better placed than those candidates who have acquired only 'A' level diploma under DOEACC.
4. Despite several representations, the respondents have not permitted the applicants to join. Aggrieved by this, the applicants have filed the present O.A. seeking the following direction(s):
"(i) To direct respondents to appoint the applicants as TGT (Computer Science) as per their merit and offer of appointment (Annexure A-5 Colly) with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and seniority etc. from the date of appointment of similarly placed persons.
(ii) To declare that action of respondents in delaying the appointment of applicants to the post of TGT (Computer Science) as illegal and arbitrary and issue appropriate directions for appointment of 8 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 applicants to the said post of TGT (Computer Science) with all consequential benefits.
(iii) To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
(iv) Any other orders may also be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
The applicants are primarily seeking direction to the respondents to appoint them as per their merit.
5. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is submitted that the applicants do not possess the requisite essential qualification with regard to their educational qualification, which is clearly stated in the Advertisement to be Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University or Graduation in Computer Science from a recognized University or BE/B.Tech. (Computer Science/ Information Technology) from a recognized University or Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt. of India; and that the applicants are possessing higher qualification, i.e. MCA/M.Sc. in Computer Science and are, thus, not eligible for appointment.
6. Both the applicants and the respondents have relied upon a catena of judgments in support of their arguments. Some of the orders and judgments relied upon by the applicants are as under:
(i) Civil Appeal Nos. 1318-1322 of 2021 in Puneet Sharma & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. dated 07.04.2021.
(ii) Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & Anr., 1986 SCC Supl. 740.
(iii) WP(C) No. 13885/2018 in Dayanand and Ors. vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. dated 21.12.2018 and order in Review Petition No.408/2019 dated 27.09.2019.
(iv) WP(C) No. 7452/2021 in Akash Akhil & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. dated 24.09.2021.
(v) WP(C) No. 6781/2021 in Rakesh Kumar and Ors.
vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. dated 01.09.2022.
The important judgments relied upon by the respondents are as under:
(a) Civil Appeal No. 11853-11854 of 2018 in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiaz Ahmad and Ors. dated 05.12.2018.
(b) Civil Appeal No. 7031 of 2021 in Devender Bhaskar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. dated 24.11.2021.9
Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
(c) O.A. No. 2729/2008 in Pooja Dua vs. Govt. of NCT
of Delhi and Ors. dated 06.01.2009
Whereas the contention of the applicants is that they are possessing requisite and higher qualification and are, therefore, eligible for the post of TGT (Computer Science), the respondents have argued that the essential qualification as advertised and indicated in the RRs are to be strictly followed and no deviation can be made whether it is possession of higher qualification or equivalent qualification, as the same has not been notified or given in the Advertisement/Notification.
7. Heard Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj & Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Chadda and Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the official respondents in respective O.As. and Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for private respondents in O.A. No. 2652/2017; and perused the judgments relied upon by both sides, written submissions and records.
8. Advertisement No.01/2014 was issued for selection to the post of TGT (Computer Science), vide Post Code No. 192/14. Total number of 2026 vacancies of TGT (Computer Science) in Directorate of Education were required to be filled vide this Advertisement. The essential qualification prescribed for this post is as under:
"Essential Qualification: Essential: 1.
Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University. OR Graduation in Computer Science from a recognized University (Provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject). OR BE/B. Tech. (Computer Science/ Information Technology) from a recognized University. OR Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt. of India."
A perusal of the essential qualification prescribed above indicates that Graduates in any subject with 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt. of India are also eligible. The applicants possess Graduation with MCA. They were issued admit cards to appear in the written test, which was held on 21.05.2017. They were declared qualified after having passed the written examination. However, the applicants could not upload their e-dossiers 10 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 with MCA Degree, as the same was not treated as essential qualification by the respondents. In terms of the interim order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2652/2017, the respondents accepted the e-dossiers of the applicants and they were included in the list of finally selected candidates. Subsequently, they were issued offers of appointment dated 25.04.2018 and thereafter. The applicants were further sent for medical examination and O.A. No. 2652/2017 was allowed by this Tribunal. This O.A. was challenged in a writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court by the private respondents. The said Writ Petition (C) No. 13885/2018 was remanded back to the Tribunal. The O.A. No. 2652/2017 was heard again and dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2021. This order of the Tribunal was yet again challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition (No.) 7452/2021 and the same was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.09.2021 and the Tribunal was directed to decide the matter afresh. Relevant extract of the order is as under:
"7. Given this position, the order of the tribunal, dated 09.07.2021, is set aside.
7.1. The tribunal is directed, once again, to decide the matter afresh, bearing in mind, inter alia, the issue brought to fore by the petitioners before us i.e., that 'A' level course is equivalent to MCA.
7.2. Needless to add, that before a final order is rendered by the tribunal, all sides will be heard, including the private respondents who are represented by Ms. Rai.
7.3 We may also add that, the order passed by us will not impact the merits of the case.
7.4. In order to hasten the proceedings, the parties and/or their respective counsels will appear before the Registrar of the tribunal, on 28.10.2021.
8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the pending application shall also stand closed."
9. It is worthwhile perusing the essential qualification as prescribed for this post once again which are primarily BCA, i.e. Bachelors Degree in Computer Application, or Graduation in Computer Science or BE/B.Tech. (Computer Science/ Information Technology) or Graduation in any subject with 'A' level course from DOEACC. It is not in dispute that the applicants are Graduates with MCA, i.e. Master of Computer Applications. The RRs for the post of TGT (Computer Science) notified on 25.04.2013 prescribed the same qualifications that have been advertised.
10. We have also observed that vide Notification dated 03.03.2015, the qualifications prescribed for the higher post of PGT (Computer Science) is M.Sc.
11Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 (Computer Science)/MCA. It is also prescribed that for promotion to the post of PGT (Computer Science), the department shall facilitate the TGT (Computer Science) to acquire the qualification, as prescribed for direct recruits. Primarily, this brings us to the issue of equivalence of MCA with the prescribed qualification of 'A' level diploma under DOEACC and if the MCA is considered to be a higher qualification, whether it subsumes the course content prescribed for 'A' level course under DOEACC. It was also brought to our notice that the respondents have set up a Committee to examine this issue consisting of the then Director (Education). The assessment of this Committee has been taken note of by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment passed on 24.09.2021 and is worth noting again as this is the only exercise undertaken by the respondents themselves with regard to the issue of equivalence. The relevant paragraphs of this report prepared by the then Director (Education) are as under:
"32. Coming to the point of whether the higher education pre supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification it is seen that the candidates have either the qualification of Masters in Computer Application (MCA) or M.Sc in Computer Science. The qualification prescribed in the RRs for the post of TGT (Computer Science) provide for (1) BCA or (2) Graduation in Computer Science or (3) Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. The qualification prescribed for PGT (Computer Science) provides for (1) M.Sc Computer Science/MCA plus One year teaching experience, amongst other qualifications.
Therefore, the qualifications of M.Sc Computer Science as well as MCA appear to the standing up to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned at serial no.2 above.
33. The matter was also examined to check whether the candidates also fulfil the principle (1) laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court a stated above. In this context, it was observed that as per information available on the site of NIELIT (erstwhile DOEACC Society, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Govt. of India, 'A' Level Course of NIELIT Scheme is equivalent to advance diploma in Computer Application. After completion of 'A' Level course, students can further enrol in 'B' Level course of NIELIT scheme. Further, 'B' Level course of NIELIT Scheme has been recognised by the Ministry of Human Resource Development as professionally equivalent to MCA degree course. As per the eligibility condition laid down by NIELIT for admission for 'B' Level course, students who have done an 'A' Level course are exempted from the first two semesters. Further, a comparative chart of the syllabus of 'A' level and 'B' level was also examined as per detail below:-
Comparison between 'A' level course and 'B' level course 'A' Level 'B' Level A1- IT Tools and B1.1-R4 IT Tools and Business 12 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 R4 Business System Systems A2- Internet Technology B1.2-R4 Internet Technology R4 and Web Design and Web Design A3 Programming and B1.3-R4 Programming and R4- Programming Programming Solving Solving through C' through 'C' Language A4- Computer System B1.4-R4 Computer System R4 Architecture Architecture A5- Structural System B1.5-R4 Structural System R4 Analysis and Design Analysis and Design A6- Data Structure B2.1-R4 Data Structure R4 through 'C++' through C++ A7- Introduction of Data B2.2-R4 Introduction of Data R4 Base Management Base Management System System A8- Basics of OS, UNIX B2.3-R4 Basics of OS, UNIX R4 and Shell and Shell Programming Programming A9- Data B2.4-R4 Data Communication R4 Communication and and Network Network Technologies Technologies B2.5-R4 Elective 1 (one of the following two subjects to be chosen) ___1-R4 introduction to object Oriented Programming through Java B2.52-R4 Software Testing and Quality Management B3.1-R4 Management Fundamentals and Information Systems B3.2-R4 Basic Mathematics B3.3-R4 Software Engineering & CASE Tools B3.4-R4 Operating Systems B3.5-R4 Networking & Mobile Communications B4.1-R3 Computer Based Statistical & Numerical Techniques B4.2-R3 Discrete Structure B4.3-R3 Software Testing and Quality Management B4.4-R3 Computer Graphics & Multimedia Systems B4.5-R3 Internet Technologies and Tools B5.1-R3 Professional and Business Communications B5.2-R3 Object Oriented Database Manage-
ment System
B5.3-R3 Network Manage-
ment and Inform-
ation Security
BE-R3 Any two Elective from
BE1- Respondent No.3
to BE10-Respondent
No.3
**List of the Subjects
from which the above
electives can be
13
Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
chosen are:
BE1-R3 Embedded Systems
BE2-R3 AI and Applications
BE3-R3 E-Business
BE4-R3 Principle of Modeling
& Simulation
BE5-R3 Parallel Computing
BE6-R3 Software Project
Management
BE7-R3 Applied Bio-
Informatics
BE8-R3 Digital Image
Processing
BE9-R3 Accounting &
Financial
Management
BE10-R3 Applied Operations
Research At 'B' level
there are two projects.
The first one will be as
for 'A' level and to be
completed as for 'A'
level. The second
project should
approximately
amount to an effort of
500 man-hours, 300
marks are assigned.
The project should be
chosen by the
candidates and
approved by the
DOEACC Society. The
should be submitted
after completion of all
papers with a fee of
Rs.3000/- and a
certificate. DOEACC
Society will constitute
a Board of two experts
to conduct a viva-
voce.
From the above chart, it can clearly be seen that all the nine subjects studied at the 'A' Level are also the starting nine subjects for the 'B' Level course. Thus, it can be inferred that for the qualification of MCA which is equivalent to 'B' Level course, has been acquired in the same faculty and thus pre supposes the acquisition qualification of 'A' Level prescribed for the post of TGT (Computer Science).
xxx xxx xxx
35. Thus the only objection of the branch that now remains to be seen is there could be numerous candidates who possess such higher qualifications/degree who may not have applied as RRs did not contain these qualifications and therefore, giving appointments to these candidates would amount to depriving the other highly qualified candidates who did not apply. In this context, it is seen that this issue was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Jyoti K.K. and others VS.
Kerala Public Service Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme 14 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 Court at para 7 of the judgment has mentioned that the High Court while dismissing the petition of the petitioners had been of the view that "all those who had similar or even better qualifications than those candidates would not have applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and such a position would result in fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications". The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while holding that the stand of the High Court was not justified, has at para 9 of the judgment held as under:-
"In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory rules have been published and those rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such rules or make himself aware of the rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of appellants would amount to fraud on the public".
36. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the judgments passed by the various courts including Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the concerned view that the candidates possessing the qualification of MCA/M.Sc (Computer Science) should be given appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science). This would not only give us the opportunity to engage the services of better qualified and meritorious teachers in a timely manner but would also spare the department unnecessary litigation."
11. This report undertakes to compare the course content of MCA Degree with 'A' level and 'B' level DOEACC course, and whether the 'A' level which is equivalent to Advance Diploma in Computer Application, has the similar course content as that of 'B' level which is equivalent to MCA Degree. A detailed comparison has been made between the 'A' level and 'B' level course. It is also clearly indicated that only on completion of 'A' level course, the students can further enroll in 'B' level course and 'B' level course has been recognized by the Ministry of HRD as professionally equivalent to MCA Degree course. The report finally concludes that 9 subjects studied at 'A' level are also the same starting subject for 'B' level course and, thus, the qualification of MCA, which is equivalent to 'B' level, pre supposes the acquisition of qualification of 'A' level course prescribed for TGT (Computer Science) and thus it was recommended that the candidates possessing qualification of MCA and even those with M.Sc. in Computer Science should be given appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science), which would result in induction of better qualified and meritorious teachers in the department.
15Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
12.The respondents have vehemently argued that it is not upto the Tribunals or the Courts to decide the issues of equivalence in academic qualifications and that this aspect should be decided by the expert academic bodies or departments only. They have also relied upon a catena of judgments in this regard.
13. Per contra, it was argued by the learned counsels for the applicants that the applicants possess not only higher qualification but have studied the prescribed course content and, thus, are in possession of the prescribed qualification also. Reliance has been placed on a catena of orders of this Tribunal and judgments.
14.We have taken note of the various relied upon judgments which have held that deciding equivalence is not the subject matter of the Courts. However, in the instant case, the fact remains that the equivalence was thoroughly examined by the respondents themselves and an equivalence was established by recommending that those applicants possessing MCA/M.Sc. (Computer Science) should be given appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science). The respondents have not only taken this conscious decision but also directed the respondent No.3 to take necessary action. Certain file notings indicate that as concluded in the report by the then Director (Education) and approved by the Special Director of Education, the respondent No.3 - DSSSB was advised to consider MCA and M.Sc. (Computer Science) as the qualification equivalent to Graduation with 'A' level diploma. Subsequent to the submission of the report by Direction (Education), specifically stating that the candidates possessing the qualification of MCA/M.Sc. (Computer Science) should be given appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science), the respondents vide letter dated 16.05.2018 have directed respondent No.3 - DSSSB that the candidates possessing the qualification of MCA/M.Sc. (Computer Science) should be appointed to the post of TGT (Computer Science). The letter is as under:
"ROOM No 11 B, OLD SECTT DELHI NO DE 4/18/4/Mac/TGT(CS)/EIV/Pt File-1/2017/4815 Date 16-5-18 To, The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) FC-18 institutional area, Karkardooma, Delhi 110092.
Sub: Status of MCA/M.Sc. Candidates Ref: Result notices No. 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 & 208 in post code 192/14 TGT (Computer Science) Respected Madam, 16 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 Vide above mentioned result notices DSSSB had provisionally nominated the Candidates, possessing qualifications MCA & M.Sc in the light of directions contained in the Hon'ble High Court judgment dated 07/08/2013 in the matter of Directorate of Education bs Neelam Rana in W.P(C) No. 575/2013. Further it was also mentioned that the user Department should thoroughly examine the eligibility of these candidates before issuing formal appointment order.
The matter had been examined and Director (Education) had decided that the Candidates possessing the qualification of MCA/M.Sc. (Computer Science) should be given appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science).
In view of the decision, memorandum/offer of appointment have been issued to 87 provisionally selected candidates (list enclosed). This is for your kind information.
R.S. Krishnan ADE (E-IV) Encls: As above Copy for information to
1. P.S. to Pr Secy. (Education)
2. PA to Director (Education) 3 PA to Spl. Director, Edn.(Admin)"
Consequent action as advised was, however, not taken by the respondents in view of the pending O.As. before this Tribunal and the Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court.
15. This is, thus, a case where the applicants are possessing higher qualification than what is prescribed. This higher qualification is, however, not unrelated to the qualification sought. The academic courses in various universities and institutes prescribe subject content and papers at different levels based on the requirement of the academic exposure and competence to be acquired by the students. In the instant case, various qualifications have been prescribed towards eligibility. One such is BCA (Bachelors of Computer Applications) which makes a candidate eligible for the post of TGT (Computer Science), whereas the degree of MCA (Master of Computer Applications) is not being considered as the qualification required. There is another contradiction whereby a qualification of Graduation in any subject with 'A' level course from DOEACC has been prescribed as qualification. This amounts to a Graduate in any subject, which could well be a Language or subject of Humanities or Social Science, absolutely unrelated to Computer Science, and, therefore, in no way relevant to the teaching of Computer Science. However, by even having a Graduation in any discipline and only by acquiring 'A' level course from DOEACC which is 17 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 equivalent to first year course of MCA, the candidates are being considered eligible for the post of TGT (Computer Science). This clearly means that, on one side, a BCA is required or a Graduate in Computer Science is required or a B.E./B.Tech. in Computer Science or Information Technology is required and, on the other side, one of the qualification is Graduation in any subject and only 'A' level course from DOEACC. Similarly, M.Sc. (Computer Science) is not a qualification whereas B.Sc. (Computer Science) is acceptable. The concerned respondents have already examined this issue and arrived at a conclusion after the comparison of course content dealing with the subject, that all the papers of 'A' level course from DOEACC are also part of the 'B' level and, therefore, those who have acquired the degree of MCA possess the required qualification prescribed for both 'A' and 'B' level course from DOEACC. We are well aware that it is not within the scope of this Tribunal to take further academic analysis to arrive at an equivalence, especially when the respondents themselves have undertaken this exercise and have arrived at a conclusion as is evident in the report quoted above.
16. We, however, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the respondents undertaking an exercise and arriving at a conscious decision to remove the glaring anomalies. The contention of the respondents that the amendment to the RRs will have to be undertaken is not tenable as in the present selection process, the applicants have not only appeared but have been declared successful. Their eligibility having been decided by the department in terms of the report of the then Direction (Education), cannot be kept on hold for the proposed amendment to the RRs. It has been further brought to our notice that the respondents have granted appointment to those who were having Advance Diploma in Computer Applications treating them as equivalent to 'A' level course from DOEACC in terms of MHRD Notification dated 01.03.1995. The MHRD Notification is as under:
"Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) New Delhi, dated 1st March, 1995 NOTIFICATION (43) No. F. 18-23/92-TD.V/TS-IV(.) On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, the Government of India has decided to recognise the 'O' level and A' level examinations conducted by the Computer Society of India(CSI) under the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) scheme as equivalent to Foundation course and Advanced Diploma level course, respectively, for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government.18
Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019
-sd/-
(VIJAY BHARAT) DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL ADVISER(T)& SECRETARY, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS"
From the above, it is clear that MHRD has recognized 'O' level and 'A' level examinations conducted by the CSI (Computer Society of India) under DOEACC scheme as equivalent to Foundation course and Advanced Diploma level course, respectively. The respondents have taken note of the qualification as given in the MHRD Notification for 'A' level examination under DOEACC and have started accepting the same as equivalent to Advanced Diploma level course, without making the required changed in the RRs and in the Advertisement. On the other hand, their own equivalence as worked out in the Committee's report by the Director (Education) has been kept on hold and the applicants who were possessing MCA/M.Sc. (Computer Science) and have been recommended by the respondents for appointment have not yet been appointed.
17. We have also observed that the selected candidates who were issued offers of appointment, are in possession of MCA and M.Sc. in Computer Science. MCA is the higher qualification over BCA, which is prescribed, and also M.Sc. in Computer Science over Graduation in Computer Science. Both these qualification not only are higher qualifications but also subsume the subjects taught in their Graduation level course. These aspects have also been taken note in the successive orders passed by this Tribunal and also by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The respondents in the report of the Director (Education) have already decided on equivalence. In view of this, the process of selection cannot be kept on hold forever.
18. In view of the above mentioned, we are of the view that the decision taken by the respondents on the basis of the report of the then Director (Education) establishing equivalence and the subsequent advice given to the Chairman, DSSSB vide letter dated 16.05.2018 do not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. On the basis of this, the applicants who have already been issued the offers of appointment in this selection for the post of TGT (Computer Science) vide Post Code No.192/14, shall be considered for appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science).
19. We, therefore, allow the O.As. directing the respondents to appoint the applicants who have already 19 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 been issued offers of appointment, on completion of necessary formalities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The relief shall be limited to only the applicants in these O.As., who have already been given offers of appointment. However, they shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary and wages but shall be entitled to other consequential benefits like seniority etc.
20. All the pending MAs also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs."
8. We have no doubt in our mind that the present OA bears close similarity with the above quoted matter.
Curiously, the post and the post code which was the subject of the said judgment is the same as is in the present matter.
There is no cause before us to hold a divergent view nor would judicial propriety allow us to do so.
9. Accordingly, on the strict analogy of the judgment dated 24.07.2023 in a bunch of OA Nos. namely O.A. No.708/2019 & M.A. No.3047/2022 M.A. No. 3363/2021 with O.A. No. 297/2021, M.A. No. 368/2021 O.A. No. 295/2021, M.A. No. 370/2021 O.A. No. 2652/2017 O.A. No. 3336/2017 the present Original Application is also allowed on identical terms. While allowing the same we direct the respondents to forthwith give appointment to those applicants who had already been issued offer of appointment subject to completion of necessary statutory and other formalities. These directions shall be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt 20 Item No. 35/C-IV O.A. No.2328/2019 of a certified copy of this Order. We make it clear that the directions contained herein shall be limited only to those applicants who had already been given offers of appointment. It is further made clear that the applicants shall not have any entitlement of backwages or salary or other emoluments. However the consequential benefits on notional basis including, but not restricted to, seniority shall also be awarded in their favor within this period of twelve weeks.
10. The OA stands disposed of against the background of these directions.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar) Member (J) Member (A) /sm/