Rekha vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 816 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the judgment/order dated 8th February, 2001 in OA No. 740/2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal(Principal Bench) New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') by which the petitioner's claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) was rejected.

3. The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to an interpretation of the qualification prescribed by the tribunal. The petitioner was an applicant for a post of Primary/Assistant Teacher in Hindi pursuant to a post which was advertised by the respondent No. 3 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board. The following position is not in dispute:

(a) The petitioner had not studied Hindi at the Secondary or Senior Secondary level.

(b) The petitioner has studied Hindi at the BA level and at the B.Ed level.

(c) That the impugned judgment of the CAT dated 8-2-2001 was based upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge in Seema Tanwar's case wherein it has been held that the higher qualification will not assist a candidate who has not done Hindi at the level of Senior Secondary or Secondary level.

4. It is also not in dispute that the view taken in Seema Tanwar's case was reversed by the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 11-9-01 rendered in LPA No. 485/99. The Division Bench laid down the following position of law in the above decision in LPA No. 45/99 in Manju Paul v. Government of Delhi:

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 BA 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, BA, MA 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 MCD 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.

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 BA with Hindi or MA with Hindi will be less efficient in teaching primary classes than a person possessing lesser qualification such as higher secondary with Hindi.

4. We entirely agree with the above position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench and indeed are bound by the said view. The tribunal's impugned judgment was based upon Seema Tanwar's judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the view taken in which judgment of the Single Judge was reversed by the Division Bench. It is not in dispute that Seema Tanwar's judgment was followed in Manju Paul's judgment by the learned Single Judge leading to an appeal by Manju Paul to the Division Bench and wherein the view taken in Seema Tanwar's case was reversed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench in Manju Paul's case gave the following directions in the operative part of the judgment:

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 MCD. On the receipt of the recommendation, the MCD shall appoint the appellant as Assistant Primary Teacher.

5. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that B.Ed, as per the judgment reported as Ataul Haque v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2001 Vol. 3 AD Delhi 159 (DB), was not a qualification for the primary teachers and the petitioner having done B.Ed would have no bearing on appointment of primary teacher. In our view this has no bearing upon the present case because the petitioner had in any event done B.A. with Hindi as one of the subjects and that sufficiently qualified her for appointment as a Hindi Teacher according to the judgment of the Division Bench. Thus even if it is assumed that the additional qualification of B.Ed. had no bearing on the appointment of the petitioner as a primary teacher, it certainly can not be treated as a disqualification but at best a surplusage.

6. Consequently following the above direction given by the Division Bench we set aside the judgment of the CAT dated 8-2-01 in O.A. No. 740/2000. We thus direct the respondent No. 3 to send the recommendation for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher to the MCD not later than 15th June, 2006. The MCD will take appropriate action and appoint the petitioner not later than 1st August, 2006. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and stands disposed of.