Delhi High Court
Lajja Ram Bhardwaj And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 12 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 97 (2002) DLT 219, 2002 (63) DRJ 547, 2003 (1) SLJ 152 Delhi
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
ORDER
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Rule.
1. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Respondent No. 2 Board issued and advertisement on 29.9.2000 for the post
of Assistant Teacher(Primary) Hindi for recruitment respondent No.1 Corporation.
The petitioners who are ex-servicemen applied for the post as they alleged that they
possessed the requisite qualifications. The petitioners appeared in the written test
and the petitioners were selected in pursuance to the result declared on 12.8.2001.
The letters offering appointment were sent to the other candidates but not to the
petitioners. The petitioners have thus approached this Court through the present
writ petition.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the
petitioners did not fulfill the criteria as per the recruitment rules to the post of
Primary Teachers. Essential qualifications are mentioned as under:
"Essential:
(a)(i) Higher Secondary pass of a recognised Board/University with an
elective subject in the required language at Matric Level.
(ii) Two Years Teacher Training Certificate from the recognised institution.
(b)(i) Intermediate or equivalent from recognised Board/University with an
elective subject in the required language at the Matric Level.
(ii) One Year Teachers Training Certificate from a recognised institution.
Note--The name of the required language will be indicated at the time of
recruitment."
4. It is also stated that though respondent Corporation has referred back 8 cases
with their dossier for reconsideration to respondent No. 2 Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board there has been no response.
5. The aforesaid issue had come up for consideration before this Court in CWP
2316/2000, Sh. Ranbir Singh v. DSSB and Anr., decided on 18.1.2002. It was held that
such petitioner cannot be disentitled from being appointed in view of the equalisation
procedure provided for. In the said judgment reference was made to the Office
Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India in November,
1985 for equalisation of trades of Indian Armed Forces with civil employment for
ex-servicemen for consideration of employment. It was held that the recruitment
regulations of the MCD are keeping in mind the civil degree. It was further held that
the purpose of such equalisation is to facilitate the Army personnel who retire form
service and seek employment. The equalisation procedure has been prescribed and
recognised by the Government of India.
6. The said Office Memorandum has also been filed as Annexure B. The
equalisation for the petitioners who are all Instructor AEC or POR (TAC) has been
inter alia given as primary teacher. In view thereof the ratio of Ranbir Singh's case
(supra), would squarely apply in the present case.
7. A writ of mandamus is thus issued directing respondent No. 1 to appoint the
petitioners to the post of Primary Teachers with all consequential benefits of
seniority as well as monetary benefits. The direction be complied within 3 weeks.
8. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
