Delhi High Court

Uoi & Ors. vs Ram Singh & Anr. on 16 December, 2011

Author: A.K.Sikri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
w.P.(cp No.«'19-48 of 1997

D er:.E.s..i.r911__iQ2ltit\:§:=ml. Q «"1 VT_'<FT"[:?--':rT|jI--- 36:96: rni:J._<:_r,_tEt0tit 1

UOI & ORS. . Pi"? IT]IO?\iE'RE.

Through: Ms. Aimisn
A (3 V Ln (II at £3.

/-'ahiaiwat,

VERSUS.

RAM SINGH 8: ANR. RESPC)N[)E."\l'l'E'>

Through: Mr. /-\E5'l-Dl< Barriwal,

Ad w':=r::».7:t :2

CIORAM :-

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUREISH KAIT

E. Wnethc3r Reporters of Local .":{IM-".l.'5[J<il[;|;."'i-i "Tc v be: allowed
to see the )t:c§gment:?

To be 'referred to tn -* R€[)Dl"{,'{':l' (Jr -mt?'

\Nhetiner the Judgment should ne rcser:u:~rlrzc n HIE' l')sges:?

(..-J .''J

A.K. SIKRI, Actinqghief Justice {ORAL}

1 .

';.'L'."J,';(_'3 No.4948 of 199/

Pursuant to the advertisement issued in thtj ye-z.ir 1990 for
recruitment to the post. of Post C5radual:e lic2a:~c:her (WET), the
respondent No.1 also applied for {HEEIE ,::»os;»t -mo t?}§'.};Z)~C'é3"E'C1 in the

test. As per the advertisement |E§f:;tlt'3{.1. i.'\'T"".{.{3l exaimaneitiacnn of two and a half hours duration mane; to be held cicinorisinig of General Knowledge, ﬂinlit:u:'1'«:2 and

'Teaching E3utje<:l_

Competence. For these three Compone;-rt:3, m23<ima.,m marks of

Pdgﬂ' 1 1)' 8

10, 25 and 50 were assigried r'espe3c.:iyi;::yi Toe F€3Sl)U'lClCﬂt was

working as l_ibra:ria:'.

On the basis of Lest; held. the i3ll"{§.'C[i3="' of lid-.icataoi'z orepareil the merit iist. in addition to 'line "'§"iEjl"l<;t= obtained by the Candidates on the hassle of aforesaicl :;=>;ainination_ the marks were also awardeo for £3XDE3rEE3llCE3 well as 'ceacnersa ward. The respondent was aasigneeci 3 .'.-- marl<a for t.eac:hsnc; experience. rlowever, later on these rnarl<;=.; were deducted/deleted or the ground that the re:-si:aonde"il was only a Librarian. The respondent cl'a!leni_:;i:;2cl he iioneppointmeril by filing OA before the Central A(lrninis'.:rat ye 'rA3"'lbLJil<'fl| i'C;'~\T' in short) in the year 1992 on two grc-unc'.:;, viz;

1) As per the adV€:l't|SE;'VTlL3l'IL, se!e(:tio:" process;

conworistzd only of lhe wril'*;i:2n reel" and this

advert:isemerit, rio\««i'l"«.<.3i'e ::';'{iliZiL}|&3LCd rna:"l<s for

teaching experience or 'i_'l§'iaChl3lfS ward w:>Lild be awarded. Therefore, the rnezrit list s;h:=u.d have been prepared only 3r: lhe east: oi' maria; obtained in the wrztlzen test.

2) it was also' contenoied that in any case, the resoorident had teac'iins§;l (5'}:D€!"|E.'l'l{IC*, inae;rni,ich as a

Librarian he had been '=:ea<_:riing line sluderils.

A-"J.l'.i£j} \i=:=.4948 of 19')? l'il§:;':' 2 0'? 8

.4'

the CA"? has accepted the first c:)i'ateritioii and on that basis,

direction was given to the petititner to give appointment to the respondent herein. For this reason, CAT did not go into the second contention, as that was hot 2-'e<:iurec.i because of" the

VEGW takeh by the CAT' on the first issue.

When this matter came up for hearing on I)'. 4.2G'1';,. arguments were heard on the first ground noted above, which were accepted by the CAT resuiting rito passing of the orders in favour of the respondent. herein However, we prfma facie find that the order of the CAT on this aspect is erroneous This View was taken in t|'1i;':'fOll()W=ﬂg manner:

"After hearing th-:3 counsel idr trio pcirties, we: are oi" the prima facie 'v'i(}W that mams for tearr-lni; e><periem.e and teachers warc could |'i£ﬂ".'E.' 'seen x_'.:\/(Bil H the selection proczess, These obsewaticmis of ours are based on the records pl"OdLl(.'Ei'C§ by the learned cochsel for the petitioner for our pa-rusai, i.'J|'il(_"l would ﬂdiCdt'€1' that just before the adve:"tisem<:':nt. given, coriscious decision was taken to maim the sa:_-lection on the basis of e>:amihat%ori of" 85 marks, 10 :'riarl«'s (_',Ii<p(;'i'lE2i'l(.'{2 on the basis of certificate C1i.Jl',.' cotiritersigneci and 05 marks for t"!C teachers wart'! may be aiéowod. Admittedly, there were no statutory iules prescribing the mode of selection and ad.rriinistratl'ue ctlecisaoh which was taken as stipulated above would cover the field."

in these circumstanzes, we cculd ham: set aside the order

and referred the matter back to the t§ZA'l' l'{Ji afresh

'c'*.' ii-'.{{.'4'; No.49/$8 Or' 1997 :J(a,'-kg'? 3 of 8

O":

~.-"=.'.P.{C ) N04948 of 1997

consideration, insofar as second ground advanced by the

respondent is concerned, viz., the respondent wanted marks

on the oasts of teaching e><peti:2rrce as mail, on the piea that as a Librarian he had been teaching the sstudents. However, the counsei for the parties agreed that since »1,. is; an old

matter, this issue be decided 'ow this 'CC:L.lI't itseit.

Having regard to the aforesaid sutsmisssonss of cotznsei for both the parties, we permitted the zjarties to hie the

additional affidavits. We may note that by that time the

respondent had already ﬂied aTi'id.a~.i:t ciaied 14.S.;201{] along with documents on the basis of which he was having teaching experience as weil. Tue petitioner was permitted to fite reoiy thereto. "The petitioner :.hereafti.:r tried its repiy vide affidavit dated O6.7.201i.. The Ft;%&;p(..mdE:.'11'. has filed

rejoinnder thereto on 1.9.9.201].

We have heard the counsei for the parties; as ooi"'it,ed out above. We may record at the outset that 10 marks were assigned for teaching experience. The respcmdent was

granted 3.5 marks for the teaching eracoerierice earlier which

were iater on deducted on the ground that he does "wot have

lhxge 4 of 8

El.

15' in

((7) No.-19<1t$ of 199/

any teaching exberierce. We may also recczra trial: if those

3.5 marks are given to the resboni:1enI;, then he stands selected for the post. 'it is only after' the d€;TdUCt:lO|'T of these marks that the respondent was treatec as eiigible for the post of PGT. In this backdrop, we now proceed to determine

the question.

In the repiy affidavit dated 06.7.2-C}: "ilecl by the petitioner, it is submitted that the post oi' Librarian was not a teaching post at that point of time. For this bcsst, B.£id. degree is not required, whereas in the case cf PEST or 'l CIT, B.E:d. is one of the essentiai qualificatioras. The l,lt}I"E}*"laf'.~.'S were treated similar to TGT only for the ptrpose of SCALES and nothing more. it is also submitted that: the job ct the Librarian is to maintain books in the library; issue the books to the students during his library period or (,3VE3"l for hoimu and the librarian was not pertormlrig any teac:hirig job as the same was not assigned to any Librarian. 'i"i"zoi,-gh it is accepted in the Time Table, which is annexed by the respondent, which is an affidavit, library class is mentioned, explanation

furnished by the petitioner in that I:i<:éba|f is that in normal

course, every class has one or two library class in a week

i '1§:J>:A 5 c: 8

during which period, the studeats go to the library to read or

consult book, etc. and the t;br'ar-an never teaches the

student when they come to the iiiararv, he only assists student in providing relevant oooks to the students. it is also submitted that initiaiiv the i'espon:_.len=.: was given 3.5 marks on provisionai basis, but at the time of verification of documents, he could not stibistantiate his teaching experience with any documents. 'i"hus the weightage of

marks awarded for teaching experience was withdrawn.

9-. The aforesaid explanation furnished by i:he petitioner is not

convincing. We may record h€i."€ thai though in the affidavit, general duties of a Libranan are rnentiorieczé, the case of the respondent is not specifacaily dealt With. Firsiit of oil, we may mention that the respondent pc=ss3es:;:es 8.E:i. degree. Further, even in the application to'm fiiieti bv the respondent before writing the examination, the respondc-nt was awarded marks of teaching experience. This was because of the reasons that it was found that the i'E5S:p(.I|'idt3i1t, in fact, had teaching experience. it would oe woitnwhiie to mention that the respondent had been getting teaching atiowance at that

point of time. He had aiso fjrnished a letter of teaching

i-'ii i'.(C} F\to.494t>' oz' 199;' i'ag2,<.- 6 oi8

X".-'.33'.(£I} §'v"O.¢i9/lb oi' 'i99/'

experience as required by the pi:-titioiier at the time of verification of the documents. '7l'w:s, =ns»;t;»fai' the iesporident is concerned, not only he was 'ia\/irig B.lid. tiualiricaiticin, he, in fact, was teaching the sttiderits-:. ft:-i wh ch a Certificate was issued by the Deputy Education Oi'f"i-::ei*--.lII and he was even given the teaching allowance In tl".-ese <.il'CUrl"lStii3I1CeS, it cannot be said that the respondent the not have teaching

expenence.

We are, thus, of the opinion that he wczisi rightly awarded the teaching marks, which were thereah'ei' wrtingfullv deieted. It would be of interest at this point that Iﬁie Department has not declared the Librarian as tE.'E3Cl"l§flg pest, though vide orders/letter dated 2.i.1.20.ll ESESUEEG by ifiicldl. Director 03' Education (Admn), the post of !..i:3rarian in Government schools of Direetijrate of Education, ':§C}V'E|"i'lFTili3l"|[ of ?\E.CI.T. of Delhi is declared as teaching post far all with immediate effect. This as;>ect making l.llZ)!'E3E'£E_lﬂ C.C]LJi'JEJlel'i'..' with the teacher coupled with the fact that the iespcmdent had teaching experience all along, fartlfies-3 GUI' Vlt w that he could

not have been deprived 0! the rr~arl<:;. wider the head

"teaching experience".

li.'i_;;(> 7 Oi 8

In View of the aforesaid, we are of '.he;- opiinizm that the selection of the respondent made by the j3€[a'T;iOi"1('_'.i" to the post of PGT provésiorialiy in i;iii:'2 i'=i'E;L instance was: rightiy done and iiiegality occurred in c:ai"i<:.i=2iling his E3;Zi;3C)li".UT?e!31. We, thus, sustain the order' of the (_jﬂ'i"ii though for differezni grounds. As a result, this writ :)i~:~'i:it:u;>n is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(sunesn KAIT) JUDGE

DECEMBER 15, 2011

;,:rT'I(i

A 3.:

C? s'JO.4E?/$8 mi 1997'

J.ig;-'.'- S of 8