Delhi High Court
Kamlesh vs D.S.S.S.B. & Ors. on 17 March, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) Nos. 4149/2008
% Judgment delivered on: 17.03.2009
Kamlesh ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alok Sangwan, Adv.
versus
D.S.S.S.B. & Others .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
*
1. This order shall dispose of WP (C) Nos. 4149/2008, 4327/2002,
4046/2008, 7055/2005, 518/2006, 10561/2006, 4937/2008 and
5090/2008.
2. The common question which arise in these petitions are that as
to whether these petitioners fulfill the required criteria of qualifying
English/Hindi as elective subject in graduation. All these petitioners
duly possess the qualification of graduation and in petition Nos.
4149/2008, 5090/2008, 4046/2008, 4937/2008 Hindi was one of the
main subjects of the petitioners in the graduation while in WP (C)
Nos. 4327/2002, 7055/2005, 10561/2006 and 518/2006 English was
one of the main subjects. Counsel for the petitioner has invited
attention of this Court to the corrigendum dated 13.3.2000 issued by
the Directorate of Education certifying that the elective word may also
include main subject as practiced in different Universities. The
contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents
have rejected the applications of the petitioners only on the short
ground that these petitioners were not found eligible on the ground
that they do not fulfill the criteria of English/Hindi as an elective
subject in the graduation level. Counsel for the petitioner thus urges
that corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000 clarified that the elective
word may also include the main subject and all the petitioners have
qualified English/Hindi as one of the main subjects at the graduation
level, therefore, the applications of the petitioners for their
appointment to the post of TGT (English/Hindi) could not have been
rejected. Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court passed in Saroj Rana and Anr. Vs Govt. of
NCT of Delhi and Ors. WP (C) No. 2576/2002 wherein a similar
question arose and this Court has threadbare gone into the said issue
and reached to the conclusion that once the candidates have studied
English/Hindi as one of their main subjects in all the three years
carrying 100 marks each, the same would meet the requirement of the
recruitment rules prescribed for appointment to the post of TGT
(English/Hindi). Counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this
Court one recommendation letter of appointment dated 17.12.2008
issued by the respondent Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
in the case of Saroj Rana.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Since the issue is no more res integra, therefore, let the
respondents appoint all these petitioners to the respective post of TGT
(English/Hindi), if they are otherwise found eligible and selected on
their own merits. The seniority of these petitioners shall be decided by
the respondents on the basis of their merit position in the selected
list. The petitioners shall not be entitled to any salary for the period
prior to the date of their joining the service of the respondents on the
principle of 'no work no pay'. In case they were found selected based
on their merit and eligibility, the notional seniority shall be given to
them as per the merit and in accordance with the applicable rules.
The respondents shall carry out the aforesaid directions within a
period of one month from the date of this order.
5. With these directions these petitions are disposed of.
6. Dasti.
March 17, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
rkr
