ORDER A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Although this writ petition was filed raising various points, after the filing of the counter affidavit controversy boils down to one point only on which the arguments were addressed.
2. The petition is filed by two petitioners both of whom had applied for the appointment to the post of primary teacher/nursery teacher/assistant teacher in MCD, NDMC and Directorate of Education, Government of Delhi pursuant to an advertisement issued by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter called DSSSB) on 11.6.1998. They claim that they were eligible in every respect for being appointed to the post of teacher applied for. The Board thereafter issued another advertisement dated 21-22/9/1998 indicating the method by which the score of every candidate was to be computed giving certain weightage to various degrees possessed by a candidate. In the same advertisement DSSSB had also indicated cut of score below which the candidates would not be considered for appointment. Those whose score was above cut off point were called for interviews held from 6.10.1998 onwards. All those candidates whose name did not appear in the list of candidates found to be above the cut off point by the DSSSB but who had actually got scores higher than the cut off point were called for verification of their papers by the DSSSB on 15/16th October.1998 and on 26/27th October, 1998. On 26th February, 1999 the DSSSB indicated the revised cut off point which cut off point indicated that any candidate having a score higher than the same will be appointed to the service. Along with the advertisement the DSSSB also displayed the list of selected candidates who according to the DSSSB had secured scores above the cut off point. In the said advertisement referred to above the DSSSB indicated dates on which candidates from various categories could approach the DSSSB in case they were having marks above the cut off point and their names had not been displayed by the DSSSB for appointment. As the names of the petitioners did not appear in the list, they appeared before the Board on the dates specified in the advertisement along with their original documents for verification. Between 28.5.1999 to 16.6.1999 the Board published the final list of appointed candidates. However the names of the petitioners did not appear in this list also. On 2.7.1999 Board put up a notice on its notice board calling upon of candidates who were having score above the cut of score and who had not been appointed. Such candidates were called for verification latest by Monday, the 5th July, 1999. Petitioners appeared before the Board but their candidatures were rejected. That is how the petitioners filed this petition challenging their exclusion.
3. In the petition, it is stated that the marks they have obtained are more than the cut off marks on which appointments are offered to other candidates and it was the apprehension of the petitioners that as L.N. Mithila University was declared to be unrecognised, cases of the petitioners were rejected on the wrong presumption that they belong to this institution which have been derecognised by National Council for Teachers Education, although according to the petitioners it was not factually correct. However stand taken by the DSSSB in the counter affidavit discloses altogether different reasons for rejecting the candidature of the petitioners.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that case of petitioner No.1 was not considered for selection to the post of Primary Teacher as there was some error in the mark sheet of Madyama certificate submitted by him. In the mark sheet submitted by him the maximum marks given in the column 3 is 200 instead of 300. However since cut off score of petitioner No.1 worked out to 53.26. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner No.1 can be recommended for the post of Primary Teacher subject to his submission of clarification from the competent authority of the University with proper seal and stamp. After this stand in the counter affidavit petitioner No.1 had taken steps to obtain duly corrected duplicate mark sheet as per which discrepancies of 200 marks shown in column 3 in the earlier mark sheet has been corrected and 300 marks are shown instead of 200. In view of this position. Mr. Raman Duggal learned counsel for the DSSSB conceded at the bar that the case of the petitioner No.1 would be sent to the Appointing authorities for his appointment.
5. The controversy however remains in respect of petitioner No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that his cut off score was only 52.98 which is below the minimum cut off score 53.21 in unreserved category and therefore he was not eligible for post of Primary Teacher, MCD (Code 08/98). In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the respondents are not calculating the score of the petitioner No.2 in correct manner and in fact petitioner No.2 has score of 53.55 which is higher than the cut off score of 53.21 for post of Primary Teacher, MCD. The dispute in the manner in which score of petitioner is calculated by the respective parties may now be stated. According to the petitioner the proper manner in which the exercise should have been done is as under :-
[A] MADHYAMA(CLASS 10)
1. Sanskrit (Grammer) - 70/100
2. Sanskrit (Literature) - 69/100
3. Sanskrit (General) - 75/100
4. Hindi (Literature) - 75/100
5. Modern Indian Language(Hindi) - 75/100
6. History - 70/100
7. Social Studies - 70/100
8. English - 57/100
9. Optional Subject(Science) - 55/100
Best of five i.e. subjects 1,3,4,5 & 6 work out to 73%.
[B] UPSHASTRI (CLASS 12)
Best of five subjects work out to 491/700
i.e. 70.14%.
[C] [A] + [B] x .04 = 28.62
-------------------
2
[D] SHASTRI [B.A.Hons] Total marks 655/1100
- 59.54%
[E] SHIKSHA SHASTRI [B.Ed]
Total marks 651/1000 - 65.10%
[F] [D] + [E] x .04 = 24.93
-------------------
2
[G] TOTAL SCORE [C] + [F] = 53.55
According to petitioner mistake committed by the respondent is that it has not calculated the best five papers of the petitioner at the 10th Standard level(Madyama) and it has erroneously assumed the first 3 papers that is Sanskrit (Grammer), Sanskrit(Literature) and Sanskrit(General) as 'single' subject/paper. It is submitted that these 3 are separate subjects which are compulsory and in which the candidate has to score minimum of 30% only and therefore these papers could not be grouped as single paper/subject.
6. On the other hand the case of the Board is that when the marks of best five subjects are to be taken into consideration, the Sanskrit is to be taken as one subject. Likewise there were two papers of Hindi of 100 marks each in which petitioner scored 75 marks each and it would be taken as one subject. Thus Sanskrit and Hindi are taken as two subjects with 3 & 2 papers respectively and marks are calculated as under :-
(1) Sanskrit - 214/300 (70/100+69/100+75/100)
(2) Hindi - 150/200 (75/100+75/100)
(3) History - 70/100
(4) Social Studies - 70/100
(5) English - 57/100
(6) Science - 55/100
Taking best of five from above i.e. 1 to 5, the total comes to 561/800 i.e. 70.12% .
7. Thus the controversy is that whether 3 papers of Sanskrit and 2 papers of Hindi are to be treated as different subjects or one subject each for the purpose of taking into consideration 5 best subjects. This is the only controversy which remains to be decided in this writ petition.
8. Petitioner No. 2 has done his 10th standard (Madhyama) from Bihar. The system of education at that level may be different in different States whereas for one subject there can be more than one papers in a particular state/Education Boards. It may be only one paper for one subject in other States. Those candidates belonging to different States who have passed their examination from different Education Boards of their respective states applied for appointment in Delhi in response to advertisement issued by DSSSB. It is the right of the DSSSB to lay down uniform criteria for the purpose of considering the candidatures of such candidates. If in the process policy decision is taken by the DSSSB to treat Sanskrit or Hindi or for that matter any other subject as one subject even if a student had taken more than one papers in that subject, it would be perfectly in order. Therefore the decision of the DSSSB in adding the total of 3 papers of Sanskrit and treating it as one subject and likewise adding the marks obtained in two papers of Hindi treating as one subject, cannot be faulted with. In fact this is more rational and would avoid unnecessary discrimination. Evolving of such a system achieves twin objectives. First, the standards are applied informally and secondly, the evaluation is based on five 'subjects' rather than 'papers' which is more broad based as merit of the candidate is adjudged after considering more disciplines. If the contention of petitioner is accepted and 3 papers of Sanskrit are treated as 3 "subjects" and 2 papers of Hindi are treated as 2 "subjects", it is possible that in a given case a candidate may have scored more marks in these five papers than other papers/subjects. His 5 best subjects would be 3 papers of Sanskrit and 2 papers of Hindi. If such a candidate gets selected it would be selection on the basis of marks obtained in 2 subjects ignoring other subjects like History, Geography, Social Studies, Science etc. This would result in unfair advantage to him and such a system would also be imperfect. Moreover the very purpose of getting better candidates by taking into consideration marks obtained in 5 subjects would be defeated. Therefore the procedure adopted by the board appears to be rational and fair as well. Further as pointed out above, this was uniform procedure adopted in respect of the candidates who applied for the post(s) in question.
9. As the manner in which the marks are calculated by the Board is neither arbitrary nor bad in law and as per calculations done in this matter, the score of the petitioner No.2 is 52.98 which is below minimum cut off score of 53.21 in the unreserved category' for the post of Primary Teacher (Code 08/98), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
10. The writ petition qua petitioner No.2 is accordingly dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.