Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1146 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. Issue rule in these petitions. Since the issues involved in these proceedings under Articles 226 of the Constitution are common, with consent of parties, the matters were heard together finally.

2. The petitioners in WP 6934-36/04 (hereafter referred to as 'Sanjeev') seek a direction that they are entitled to compete in, and considered for the post of Assistant Teachers, advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Selection Board ('the Board'). These petitioners hold B.Ed/ one years' teachers'training certificates. The second batch of petitioners (WP 6606-10/2005, hereafter called 'Sandeep') on the other hand, seek a declaration/ direction that only those candidates with two years 'teachers' training certificate qualifications, can compete in the recruitment process. They also attack inclusion of certain questions in the competitive examination held by DSSB, as falling outside the syllabus; the competitive exam is therefore impugned.

3. That Board invited applications for recruitment, to the post of Assistant Teachers, (bearing code 0342 and 0347). Code 0342 relates to recruitment to 36 posts, under the Government of NCT. The essential qualifications advertised for the post are:

"(1)Higher Sec/Sr.Sec/Intermediate or Graduate from recognized University Board.

(2) Two years JBT/ETT Certificate/ Diploma or B.Ed/El.Ed., from a recognized institution/University."

Code 0347 related to recruitment to 1813 posts, under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The essential qualifications advertised for these posts are:

"(a)(i) Higher Secondary pass of a recognized board/University with an elective subject in the required language at the matric level.

(ii) Two years Teacher Training Certificate form recognized institution.

Or

(a)(i) Intermediate or equivalent from recognized Board/university with an elective subject in the required language at the matric level.

(ii)One year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognized Institution."

4. The batch of petitions in Sandeep(tm)s case was filed earlier. The allegations contained in those proceedings are to the effect that the Board could not have proceeded to fill the vacancies advertised, in respect of both categories of posts, viz of the MCD as well as the Govt. of NCT (i.e codes 0342 and 0347, respectively), since B.Ed qualifications are not recognized. It has also been alleged that recruitment candidates with one year Teacher Training diploma/certificate is impermissible. It is alleged that both these qualifications run counter to the Regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education for the recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Primary) notified on 04.09.2001 in the Gazette of India, under provisions of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('the 1993 Act'), as well as judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court of India.

5. This court, by its ad-interim order dated 15th April, 2005, had directed as follows:

"Viewed from all these angles, therefore, the Respondents cannot consider persons who have not undergone two years basic Teachers Training Programme for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers(Primary). The petitioners have prayed for a stay of the Examination scheduled to be held on 24.04.2005. The advertisement was published some months ago. It is directed that only those persons who have basic Teachers Training Programmes of two years duration would be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers(Primary). It follows that if the question paper is set in such a manner as is beyond the curriculum of a person who has undergone basic Teachers Training Programme of two years duration, the entire Examination may be vitiated. With these observations there is no necessity to interdict the coming Examinations."

6. The second batch of petitions, in Sanjeev's case, followed, close on the heels of the interim order dated 15-4-2005. The petitioners in these proceedings state that the advertisements permit B.Ed. as a qualification, and therefore, the interim order has the effect of foreclosing the entitlement of such candidates to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioners here allege that the respondent is bound by the terms of advertisement, and cannot take a contrary view, in refusing to select or appoint those possessing B.Ed or other notified qualifications.

7. The Board and Government of NCT filed a common return. MCD filed a separate counter-affidavit, in Sandeep's case . The MCD has admitted that it would not select B.Ed. candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary); it is silent on the point of those with one year's diploma certificate, an eligible qualification, on the basis of Recruitment Rules of 1980. The response of Board and NCT avers that candidates having qualifications of B.Ed. are eligible for the post of primary teacher in the Governmet Schools because Primary Teachers, on promotion have to teach in the middle school; at that stage, B.Ed is an essential qualification. A similar position has been projected on behalf of the respondents in Sanjeev Kumar's case.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Sandeep's case, Mr. Kirti Uppal, urged that the decision of a Division Bench of this court, in Atul Haque v. Govt. of NCT and others. 2001 III AD (Delhi) 159 ( 'Haque's case) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT ( 'the Yogesh case') conclude the issues regarding qualification. It is urged that having regard to the nature of B.Ed qualifications, and after considering the content of the course, as well as the recruitment rules, the Division Bench had ruled that even if B.Ed or a one year teachers training diploma are notified in the recruitment rules, nevertheless, the insistence that a two year training diploma as essential, cannot be termed arbitrary, and that candidates have to possess that qualification for appointment. Learned counsel further stated that the regulations under the 1993 Act clearly postulate inter alia, that only candidates with two years' teachers training diplomas are considered eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary).

9. Counsel for the petitioners also challenged the setting of question papers for the competitive examination to the recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Primary). It was stated the petitioners apprehended that since the respondents had invited applications from candidates having higher qualifications, they annexed the scheme of examination, as Annexure "P4 with the writ petition on page 38, which states in para 3, that "question on different subject mentioned as serial No. 2 to 6 will generally be of matriculation level and include questions on teaching methods applicable to be concerned subject'.

It was submitted therefore, that in view of the above, the order dated 15.04.2005 had observed that if the question paper is set in such manner as is beyond the curriculum, the entire examination may be vitiated.

10. The petitioners have challenged the question paper in Civil Misc. Application No. 7328/05 specifying 7 questions on the basis of their memory, (with the rider that there were some more questions) beyond the curriculum/syllabus of matriculation level. The respondent Board filed reply to the Misc. Application No. 7328/05 and denied that questions were of higher secondary level and sought to prove such questions were up-to the matriculation level.

11. Mr. Uppal submits that the petitioners scrutinized the syllabus of CBSE and ICSE board as the respondents No. 2 and 4 have referred the topics in its annexure 'V on internal page No. 31 and 32 of reply and question wise scrutiny and reference of books of CBSE and ICSE of matriculation level and higher secondary level. They annexed a separate set of synopsis in relation to such questions, alleged to be beyond the syllabi, in support of the argument that the entire recruitment process stood vitiated.

12. Mr. Shaikh Imran Alam, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Sanjeev Kumar's case, on the other hand, submitted that the Board as well as the MCD are bound by the terms of advertisement, which clearly stipulated that candidates possessing B.Ed. qualifications, and one year's training certificate in the case of those with intermediate qualifications, were eligible for consideration and appointment. It was urged that the petitioners had prepared themselves for the examination, and submitted applications, which were duly processed, and received. Now, at the stage of consideration of their candidature, the respondents cannot resile from the public stand taken by them, and state that such candidates are ineligible.

13. Learned counsel for the MCD reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Ms. Zubeida Begum, learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, contended that recruitment would be strictly as per the requirements of the requisitioning unit or department, concerned. She also submitted that in the case of recruitment to posts in NCT, candidates possessing qualifications as per recruitment rules, and notified in the advertisements would be considered. She further submitted that those with B.Ed qualifications were eligible, as per the stand of Government of NCT, since they would have to teach middle school students, upon promotion; in such a case, the minimum qualification would be B.Ed. She also submitted that the questions in the examination were as per the syllabi of ICSE/ CBSE. She relied upon documents of the respective Boards for the purpose.

Issues before the Court

14. The two issues which arise for consideration in these proceedings are the essential qualifications under law, for appointment to Assistant Teacher (Primary) notified by the board and whether the Board set the papers in the examination by including content that was beyond the advertised curriculum.

15. The relative qualifications prescribed by the MCD and the Government of NCT for Asst. Primary Teachers have been set out in para 3 above. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to deal with the regulations framed under the 1993 Act. They are known as the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimal Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001. Regulation 2 mandates that provisions of the Regulations shall be applicable for recruitment of teachers in all formal schools established, run or aided or recognized by Central or State Government and other authorities for imparting education at elementary (inter alia, primary and upper primary school) stage. Regulation 3 provides that qualifications for such posts shall be as per the First and second schedules; Regulation 4 enjoins that all recruitment rules are to be amended to bring them in conformity with the provisions of the Regulations. The first schedule reads as follows:

"First Schedule to the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers) Regulations 2001

Recruitment qualifications for recruitment of teachers in educational institutions mentioned in Section 2 of the Regulations.

LEVEL

MINIMUM ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

I Elementary

(a)Primary

--------------------

(b) Upper Primary (Middle School Section)

i)Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent, and

(ii) Diploma of certificate in basic teachers' training of duration of not less than two years.

Or

Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)

-----------------------------------------------------------

i)Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent; and

(ii) Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training of a duration of not less than two years.

Or

Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)

Or

Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) or its equivalent.

16. The common feature, which emerges from a joint reading of the recruitment rules, and the Regulations, is that two essential qualifications have been mandated for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), i.e elementary school. One, of having passed Higher secondary examination/ intermediate or equivalent, from a recognized Board/ university. The Regulations talk of Senior Secondary school certificate. The second essential qualification is the one in controversy here. MCD posits 'Two years Teacher Training Certificate form recognized institution' along with Higher secondary/ senior secondary qualification, or, alternatively, inter alia, 'one year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognized Institution'. The Government of NCT, on the other hand, prescribes the qualification inter alia, as 'two years JBT/ETT Certificate/ Diploma or B.Ed/El.Ed., from a recognized institution/University.' The regulations under the 1993 Act however, prescribe the minimum or essential qualification for teachers in primary/ elementary schools to be inter alia,

'(ii) Diploma of certificate in basic teachers' training of duration of not less than two years.

Or

Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)"

17. In Haq's case, the Division Bench, after noting the curriculum and other aspects, said that:

"It will thus be seen that whereas the ETE/JBT curriculam is framed in such a way that one single teacher is able to teach all the subjects to a particular class of students, in B.Ed. curriculam the emphasis is on the specialisation in two subjects. The ETE/JBT courses are designed specially keeping the children of class I to V in mind which is not the case with B.Ed.. curriculum. A primary teacher has to undergo teacher training in primary classes that is class I to V whereas a B.Ed. degree holder is required to have teaching experience of secondary classes i.e. from VI to X. In the curriculum frame work for quality teacher education framed by National Counsel for Teachers Education, an autonomous body, it has been clearly mentioned in clause 2.7 that the curriculum for primary teacher has been formulated specially to enable the teachers to teach primary classes i.e. from I to V whereas in clause 2.9 which deals with teachers education for secondary stage it has been observed that for teaching at the secondary level educational qualification which is most sought after is B.Ed. which in fact is meant for this stage alone. The subject-content as well as teaching methodology is different for ETE diploma holder and B.Ed. degree holder. The teaching practice for primary teachers and secondary teachers is also of different duration and different levels. The two qualifications operate in different fields and at different levels. It will therefore be wrong to say that B.Ed. is a higher qualification then ETE/JBT in the same sense as B.A. is higher than intermediate. B.A. degree is considered to be higher than intermediate because for passing B.A. one has necessarily to pass intermediate but in order to obtain B.Ed. it is not necessary to pass ETE/JBT first. These two qualifications are specifically meant for different levels of students and there is no question of one being higher than the other".

18. The court had also noticed that the (NCTE) and State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) both had taken a stand that B.Ed. candidates are not suitable for teaching primary classes for whom ETE/JBT courses are specifically designed.

19. In the Yogesh case, the Supreme Court endorsed the view of the Division Bench, in the following terms:

"The division bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered opinion it has rightly come to the conclusion that B.Ed. qualification, although a well recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education - being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the B.Ed. candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to teachers for B.Ed. course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding B.Ed. degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which B.Ed. is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that B.Ed.. is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with B.Ed. degree qualification and latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former"

20. The discussion in the preceding paragraphs would show that the issue is no longer open; it stands concluded by the ruling of the Division Bench, and the Supreme Court. The essential qualification, for the purpose of recruitment to the post of a primary/ Assistant Teacher (Primary) is inter alia, two years teachers' training certificate. Hence, other qualifications, such as B.Ed. or one years' diploma/ certificate are not recognized qualifications. In my considered view, the position would not alter, even if the advertisement includes B.Ed/ one years' teachers' training certificate, in view of the findings of the Division Bench, and more importantly, the 2001 Regulations, which are discussed below.

21. The issue about qualification ought to have ended in view of the above findings. However, it would be necessary to deal with the submissions made on behalf of petitioners in the Sanjeev case to the effect that there has been no change in the recruitment rules, and that the authorities ought to have proceeded to complete the recruitment process as per the advertisements, which permitted one years' teachers training certificate, inter alia, in the case of MCD, and B.Ed in the case of Govt. of NCT schools.

22. The submission about the respondents being bound by terms of advertisement or alternatively, the terms of the recruitment rules, cannot be entertained. Firstly, a similar plea was put forward in Haq's case and negatived; that reasoning was upheld, by the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court constitutes law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are bound by the law so declared. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim estoppel, on the basis of the advertisement. Secondly, in Haq's case, the views of NCTE were noticed. Now, the Regulations under the 1993 Act have been formulated, and have come into force. They contain clear standards that have to be followed by all State and Central Government bodies, and recognized institutions. They mandate, inter alia, that Primary teachers must possess two years teachers' training diploma/ certificate. of the 1993 Act requires the NCTE to co-ordinate and lay down standards. Relevant portions of the said provision read as follows:

"12. Functions of the Council.--

It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may--

******** *********

(c) co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country;

(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions;

******** *********

(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum;

(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications;

(g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses of training;

******** *********

(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government."

Regulations were framed, in 2001, on the topic of minim standards of eligibility for teachers, including qualifications of primary teachers. The regulations categorically require a two years teachers' training diploma; B.Ed qualification is not a recognized qualification for primary teachers. Regulation 4 requires all institutions, including State Governments, to follow the norms prescribed by the Regulations; a three year period was given, to bring the recruitment rules of every institution in line with such norms. That period apparently expired in 2004. In the light of these, and also Section 16 of the 1993 Act, which gives overriding effect to the enactment, it cannot now be possibly contended that conditions in the recruitment rules, or advertisements, which spell out qualifications that conflict with those in the 2001 Regulations nevertheless be applied.

23. The effect of the 1993 Act, and regulations, in the context of a similar contention for enforcement of recruitment conditions in rules that contained contrary stipulations, were considered by the Supreme Court, in a recent judgment reported as Rajesh Kumar Gupta' v. State of UP . The court held as follows:

"Whether the selection of candidates for special BTC training is contrary to the provisions of the basic Education Act, 1972 and U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981.

19. Relying on the judgment of Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College , the High Court held that the National Council for Teacher Education constituted under Section 3 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 is an expert body whose function is to maintain the standards of education in relation to teachers' education. It was for this body to prepare norms for recognised courses for teachers' education on different levels. The special BTC training course contemplated by the State of U.P. had not been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education Act under the 1993 Act. It was. therefore, not a recognised teachers' training course. The State government therefore, could not have declared it or treated it as equivalent qualification for the purpose of Assistant Masters or Assistant Mistresses, Merely because the State was under pressure and in a hurry to recruit a large number of teachers, the requirement of educational standards of the training imparted to the teachers could not be compromised. Strangely, despite recognition of E.Ed/L.T. and other courses recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education Act under the 1993 Act, the State government had not bothered to declare their equivalence for the purpose of making appointment on posts of Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistress for the schools run by the Board. The High Court therefore, pointed out that the Government Order recognizing special BTC course as equivalent qualification was contrary to the provisions of the UP Basic Education Act and provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, particularly so in view of Section 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the State Act.

20. The U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 provides under Section 5 for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Masters and Assistant Mistresses to Junior Basic Schools. The Rules prescribe the qualifications requisite for such posts. Academic qualification required is a bachelor's degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government together with 'training qualification' consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate, Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognised by the government as equivalent thereto. In the face of these Rules, and particularly keeping in view the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the High Court that the special BTC training course formulated by the State government was contrary to the provisions of the impugned Act and Rules and the 1993 Central Act."

24. In view of the above position, recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) of the B.Ed. candidates, and those who does not possess two years teachers training diploma/ certificate qualifications do not arise; the advertisement dated 06.01.2005 inviting B.Ed candidates, and others who do not possess two years teachers' training diploma/ certificate for recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Primary) is impermissible. The submission on behalf of the petitioners in Sanjeev's case about the candidates having prepared themselves, and applied for examination, in conformity with the advertisement, and thus having suffered some prejudice, is not entirely without merit. The legal position, on this aspect, was known to all; such as the MCD, the Board, and the Government of NCT. Indeed, MCD was a party to the proceedings in Haq's case and the Yogesh case. Yet, the impermissible qualifications were advertised. In the course of proceedings, MCD once again did a volte face; it denied that recruitment could be done on the basis of one years teacher training certificate. Likewise, the legal position is not different in the case of the Government of NCT; it however, persisted in asking candidates with B.Ed qualifications to apply; even during course of hearing this was sought to be justified, on the basis that such qualifications are needed after personnel are promoted to the middle school. That submission was expressly taken and rejected by the Supreme Court, in the decision in Yogesh Kumar case. Being law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution, that declaration is binding on all. Hence the action in including such qualifications, which are impermissible, in the advertisements, is arbitrary, and without application of mind. This has led to a colossal waste of effort, since several candidates applied with such qualifications; they also expended efforts to prepare themselves for the examination. The Board and other agencies also would have spent time, effort and money to process such applications; these could have been avoided, in the light of the directions of the Division Bench, the Supreme Court, and the 2001 Regulations. Certain directions are therefore called for on this issue.

25. The second issue, raised in Sandeep's case, is about certain questions having been included, allegedly beyond the curriculum of the two years' teachers training diploma/ certificate. The petitioners have endeavored to show that some seven questions were beyond the Class IX and class X syllabi. These pertained to, inter alia, the automatic nervous system; method of finding out oxidation state/ number; similar conductor formed when indium (in) metal is doped in Germanium (Ge); oxidation number of sulphur; insolubility, in water, of four substances; torque and angular momentum, and the gas produced due to heating of ammonium nitrate. The Board has refuted these allegations, and averred that the questions are of Matriculation level, and some are of Higher secondary level. It has also been stated that there is no uniformity amongst matriculation standards throughout the country, and that the entrance test is an All India process. Therefore, it has been contended that inclusion of one or the other question as per Higher Secondary syllabi cannot render the entire examination illegal; the objective is to ensure that selected candidates possess a good knowledge of the subjects, up to the Higher Secondary Level.

26. The issue here is the extent to which the court can intervene, in exercise of judicial review. This perspective, and the limits to which the courts can delve, or probe into the recruitment process, particularly in the absence of allegations of mala fides, or demonstrable arbitrariness, have to be seen in the light of the settled law that the court would not substitute its opinion to that of an expert, specially in academic matters. This was discussed in Haq's case itself, where the court held, inter alia, that:

"In the case of University of Mysore, H.H. Anniah Gowda v. C. D. Govinda Rao, , University had appointed a board of appointments to select candidates to the post of Reader. The recommendations made by the Board were accepted by the University and the appointments were accordingly made. These appointments were challenged before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that candidates did not possess the requisite qualification. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Court should not interfere in such matters if there is no allegation of mala fides against persons who constituted the Board. Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it will be wiser and safer for the Courts to leave the decision to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Court generally can be. In the case of M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of Madhya Pradesh, , it was observed that the executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a police for the administration of the State. Court cannot and should not out step its limit, unless policy framed is absolutely capricious not being informed by any reason whatsoever or offends any constitutional provisions."

The view, which supports judicial restraint, in matters where academic issues (such as equivalence, etc) are involved- as indeed the present issue would be, since the court has been invited to enter the thicket of decision making and hold whether some questions are indeed a part of the syllabi of Higher Secondary or Intermediate examination- has been articulated by the Supreme Court, in Tariq Islam "vs- Aligarh Muslim University 2002 (35) Lab. IC 566, thus:

"it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally are. Area of interference by Courts would be limited to whether the appointment made by the academic body had contravened any statutory or binding rule and while doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts and on whose recommendations the academic body had acted and not to treat such expert body as a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision. Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and Courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the experts were satisfied that the equivalence has already been considered and declared by it. This view has been reiterated by this Court in several decisions on the question of equivalence of qualifications including the one in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University ."

It would therefore, be neither wise, nor appropriate for this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to look into the question papers set by the Board in this case, and decide whether one or the other question was within or outside the syllabi of some Board of secondary/ higher secondary/ intermediate examination. Indeed, such a course would be fraught with the danger of imposing an avoidably subjective viewpoint, of the court, since there is no uniformity or unanimity in regard to the content of standards of education at that stage, or level.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that WP 6606-10/2005 have to be partly allowed, to the extent that the advertisement, issued by the Board, dated 06.01.2005 inviting B.Ed candidates, and others who do not possess two years teachers(tm) training diploma/ certificate for recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Primary) is quashed/ set aside. For the same reasons, WP 6934-36/05 are dismissed. The respondents are directed to proceed and finalize appointments in respect of the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the MCD and Government of NCT, by ensuring that such of the candidates who possess two years' teachers training diploma/ certificate, among other prescribed qualifications are considered; those with B.Ed. or one years' teachers training diploma/ certificate cannot be recruited. Further to the findings and observations in para 25 about the arbitrariness involved in the inclusion of impermissible qualifications, the following directions are issued:

1)The Government of NCT and MCD are directed to inquire into, and locate responsibility upon the concerned officials who recommended inclusion of the impermissible qualifications of B.Ed/ one year teachers' training diploma/ certificate in the advertisement/ recruitment process, and ensure that appropriate action is initiated against them within a period of ten weeks from today;

2)A compliance affidavit indicating steps taken pursuant to direction (1) above shall be filed within 12 weeks from today. This affidavit shall also disclose the number of ineligible candidates with B.Ed and one years(tm) teachers training qualifications who applied, and whose cases were processed and who were granted roll numbers. The total expenditure incurred by the respondents for processing and issuing admit cards to such ineligible persons shall also be disclosed.

3)Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the MCD and the Government of NCT are directed to jointly pay each of the petitioners, in WP 6934-36/05, the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs, and recover them from the salary of the persons responsible for inclusion of the impermissible qualifications in the advertisement issued by the Board. The costs shall be paid within 6 weeks from today; the action taken shall be also included in the compliance affidavit to be filed as per directions contained in this judgment.

28. The petitions are disposed off in terms of the above directions.