Delhi High Court

Rakesh Pandey vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Ors. on 31 August, 2009

Author: A. K. Pathak

              HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

+    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11058/2009

                Judgment reserved on: 21ST August, 2009
%               Judgment delivered on: 31st August, 2009

     RAKESH PANDEY                           ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr.G.D. Chopra and Mr. S.N.
                           Tripathi, Advocates
             Versus

     GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr.Purbali Bora for Ms. Aruna
                           Tiku, Addl. Standing Counsel
     Coram:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
        be allowed to see the judgment?       Not Necessary

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?     Not Necessary

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest?                       Not Necessary

A.K. PATHAK, J.

1. Petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in a school of

Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Petitioner possessed B.A. (Hons.)

degree in Statistics with Mathematics as optional subject in first

and second year of degree course. Vide order dated 3rd August,

2007 Respondent promoted large number of Assistant Teachers

to the post of TGT/TGT (MIL). However, Petitioner was not

promoted.

2. Aggrieved by the action of Respondent in not promoting him

to the post of TGT (Maths), Petitioner made a representation

dated 6th September, 2007 before the Respondent. Finding no

response from the Respondent, Petitioner filed O.A. No.

1436/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") praying

therein that the Respondent be directed to promote Petitioner as

TGT (Maths) retrospectively with all consequential benefits.

Tribunal dismissed this O.A. vide order dated 29 th May, 2009.

3. Dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal, Petitioner has

filed present writ petition praying therein that the impugned

order be quashed and Respondent be directed to promote

Petitioner as TGT (Maths) retrospectively i.e. from the date when

his junior Shri Ashok Kumar Singh was promoted. Petitioner

also claimed all consequential benefits. Petitioner has also

prayed that the clarification dated 13th March, 2000 be declared

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Petitioner had contended before the Tribunal that he, being

a B.A. (Hons.) in Statistics with Mathematics as elective subject,

was eligible for promotion to the post of TGT (Maths), in terms of

the Recruitment Rules. One Shri Subhash Chand, who had

passed two years B.Sc. (Pass) course with Mathematics as an

optional subject, had been promoted. Petitioner was having

better qualification than Shri Subhash Chand as Petitioner had

done B.A. (Hons.) degree; while Shri Subhash Chand was only

B.Sc. (Pass). That apart juniors of the Petitioner had also been

promoted. Thus, Petitioner's Right to Equality, as guaranteed

under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, was

infringed. As against this, Respondent contended that the

Petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the

post of TGT (Maths) as he had not studied Mathematics as

elective subject in all three years of his graduation degree. The

Recruitment Rules read with Corrigendum dated 13th March,

2000 clearly prescribed that a person having studied elective

subject in all three years of graduation course would only be

eligible for consideration to the post of TGT in that particular

subject. Shri Subhash Chand had studied Mathematics in all

years of his degree course and was eligible for promotion.

Petitioner was not eligible for consideration as he had studied

Mathematics as an optional subject only in two years i.e. Part I

and Part II of his graduation course of three years. He did not

study Mathematics in third year.

5. Tribunal held that if the rules do not take care of a

particular situation same can be supplemented by

clarifications/guidelines/executive instructions. The word

"elective" as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules was defined by

issuing Corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000 which provide that

a candidate should have studied the concerned subject in all

parts/years of graduation. Petitioner had not studied

Mathematics in third year (Part III) of his B.A. (Hons) degree

course, thus, was not eligible to be considered for promotion to

the post of TGT (Maths). Petitioner had studied Mathematics

only in Part I and Part II examination. He had not studied

Mathematics in Part III examination. Since Petitioner had not

studied Mathematics in all three years of his graduation course,

he was rightly not considered for promotion to the post of TGT

(Maths).

6. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the order

passed by the Tribunal is correct and is not liable to be interfered

with. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned

order.

7. Educational qualification as prescribed under the relevant

Recruitment Rules reads as under:-

"A Bachelor's degree (pass/Hons) from a recognized university or equivalent having secured atleast 45% marks in aggregate in two school subjects of which atleast one out of the following should have been at the elective level:-

(a) English (b) Mathematics (c) Natural/Physical Science (d) Social Science Note:- Main subject for (i) TGT (Natural Sc/Physical Sc.) shall be physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany & Zoology.

(ii) TGT (So.Sc): History/Political Sc./Economics/Business/Studies/Sociology /Geography/Psychology Provided further that the requirement as to minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate at graduation level shall be relaxable in case of

(a) candidates who possesses a post graduate qualification in any of the teaching subjects listed above (b) belonging to SC/ST (C) Physically handicapped category.

(iii) Degree/Diploma in training Education or SAV Certificate

(iv) Working knowledge of Hindi Provided that Asstt. Trs. (From MCD/Dte. Of Edn.) and Lab. Asstt. Shall not be required to have recd. 45% marks in Bachelor's degree (Pass/Hons.) or equivalent."

8. The word "elective", as used in para 1 of the aforesaid

quoted rule, has not been defined in the Recruitment Rules.

However, by issuing a Corrigendum on 13th March, 2000,

Respondent defined the meaning of word "elective" and the same

reads as under:-

"As per policy the definitions of elective R/Rs has been framed as that the candidates should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the R/Rs of at least 100 marks each in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different universities."

9. Bare perusal of the relevant rule read with the Corrigendum

dated 13th March, 2000 clearly shows that the essential

qualification to be fulfilled by an Assistant Teacher for promotion

to the post of TGT (Maths) is that he should have studied

Mathematics in all parts/years of his graduation course. Since

word "elective" was not defined in the Recruitment Rules,

therefore, Director of Education/branch had come out with the

Corrigendum defining the meaning of word "elective". No fault

can be found in this action of the Respondent. Accordingly, we

are of the view that Tribunal was right in holding that the

Petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the

post of TGT (Maths). So far as Shri Subhash Chand is