Delhi High Court
Sh. Prakash Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 20 May, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.3478/2010
% Date of Decision: 20.05.2010
Sh. Prakash Singh .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Advocate
Versus
UOI & Ors. .... Respondent
Through Ms. Sonia Sharma and Mr. Jayender,
Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd February,
2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in
OA 3073/2009 titled as Sh. Prakash Singh Vs. UOI through Secretary,
Ministry of HRD, dismissing his application seeking direction to the
respondent to quash and set aside the selection process for the post of
TGT (Math) held as per advertisement dated 15th - 21st November, 2008
and direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for
empanelment as a TGT (Maths).
The petitioner graduated in PCM stream in second division
from CCS University, Meerut. He had scored more than 66% marks in
PCM Stream in Maths, Physics and Chemistry, however, he did not
score more than 50% marks in chemistry.
By the notification dated 15th/21st November, 2008 in
Employment News, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, respondent nos.
2 & 3 invited applications for the post of TGT (Maths) under the post
code No. 36 with pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. The upper age
limit for the said post was 35 years and the last date of receipt of
application was 15th December, 2008.
The essential qualifications laid down for the candidates for the
post of TGT (Maths) were as under:-
ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
i) Four years Integrated Degree Course of Regional Institute of
Education of NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50%
marks in aggregate or Second Class Bachelor's Degree with at
least 50% marks in the concerned subject(s) and in aggregate
including elective and languages in the combination of subjects
as under :
S.No. Short Post Subject (s) Subject
Name of Cod Code
Post/Sub e
ject
1. TGT 36 Maths with any two of the 06
(Math.) following subjects :-
Physics/Chemistry/Electr
onics/ Computer
Science/Statistics
ii) B.Ed. or equivalent degree from a recognized University.
iii) Proficiency in teaching in Hindi, and English.
Desirable: Knowledge of Computer Application.
The petitioner applied for selection for the post of TGT (Maths)
and he was issued an admit card for the written examination. The
petitioner qualified the written examination and he was called for
interview on 30th June, 2009.
The petitioner was, however, not empanelled in the select list of
the candidates for the post of TGT (Maths) in OBC category and
therefore, he sought information under RTI Act, 2005 and he was
informed that he was not eligible because he had secured 221 marks
out of 450 marks in chemistry at graduation level, which was less than
50% marks.
The petitioner challenged his non-empanelment for the post of
TGT (Maths) on the ground that though he did not have 50% marks in
Chemistry, however, he had 50% marks in Mathematics and he also
had aggregate marks of more than 50% and in any case, Physics,
Chemistry and Maths (PCM) his percentage was more than 57%. It was
contended that low percentage of 49.11% in Chemistry alone could not
affect his eligibility for the post of TGT (Maths) as he had not applied for
TGT (Science) nor for any TGT post other than Maths. The petitioner
also contended that the marks obtained in Chemistry by the petitioner
at the graduation level have no nexus to his appointment as a TGT
(Maths).
Before the Tribunal, the plea of the petitioner was contested by
the respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was not
eligible for empanelment because he had less than 50% marks in
Chemistry at the Graduate level. Regarding issuing of admit card and
the petitioner qualifying the exam and appearing in the interview, it was
asserted that he was allowed to appear as a candidate provisionally but
final selection of the petitioner was subject to eligibility for the post as
the verification of certificates is done at the time of interview. Reliance
was also placed on the Employment News dated 15th - 21st November,
2008 stipulating that the candidate should ensure that they fulfill all
eligibility conditions and mere issuance of admit card will not imply
that the candidate has been finally selected.
Regarding the essential qualifications for the post code No. 36
viz. TGT (Maths), it was categorically stipulated that Maths with any of
the two following subjects, i.e., Physics/Chemistry/Electronics/
Computer Science/Statistics. A candidate was required to have a
Bachelor's degree with at least 50% marks in concerned subject(s) and
in aggregate including elective and languages in the combination of
subjects a minimum of 50% marks. Since for the Maths, a candidate
was required to have following additional subjects of
Physics/chemistry/electronics/computer science/Statistics, the
candidate was required to have 50% marks in subject(s).
The Tribunal, after considering the pleas and contentions of the
parties, agreed with the stand taken by the respondents that for TGT
(Maths), a candidate was liable to have 50% marks not only in the
Maths but also in two other subjects. The essential qualifications
categorically stipulated that at least 50% marks in the concerned
subject(s). Reliance was also placed by the Tribunal on the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. UOI & Ors.
(2007) 4 SCC 54. The Tribunal agreed with the interpretation of the
eligibility condition given by the respondent and dismissed the original
application of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently
contended that since the petitioner had applied for the post of TGT
(Maths), the requirement was 50% marks in that subject only and in
the circumstances, it could not be held that the petitioner is not eligible.
However, perusal of essential qualifications reveals that a candidate for
the post of TGT (Maths) was required to have two more subjects with
Maths, which were Physics/Chemistry/Electronics/Computer
Science/Statistics. For TGT (Maths), if a candidate was required to
have two more subjects, the qualification also contemplated that the
candidate must have obtained at least 50% marks in concerned
subject(s). Since the name of the post was TGT (Math), it cannot be
held in the facts and circumstances that the candidate was required to
have 50% marks in that subject only. The subject(s) in the
advertisement is plural for TGT (Math) and therefore, it cannot be
inferred that the eligibility condition of minimum 50% marks is not
applicable to two other subjects which a candidate is required to have
with the subject Maths. Therefore, the construction of the eligibility
qualification that a candidate is required to have minimum 50% marks
in Maths and other two subjects so as to be eligible for the post of TGT
(Maths) cannot be faulted.
In the facts and circumstances, therefore, we do not find any
illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal challenged before
us, which will require any interference by us in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MAY 20, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
