Kartar Singh vs Directorate Of Education And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2347 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 2nd May, 2011.

+                           W.P.(C) 12637/2009

%        KARTAR SINGH                                        ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. Murari Tiwari with Ms.
                                          Priyanka Nayak, Advocates.

                                   Versus

         DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS .... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 4 th June,

2006 inviting applications for the post of Art/Drawing Teachers in the

department of the respondent no.1 had so applied under the reserved

category. The petitioner relied upon a Scheduled Caste Certificate issued

by the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner appeared in the competitive

examination held for the said purpose but in the result declared on 2 nd

September, 2007 the name of the petitioner did not find mention in the list

of successful/selected candidates. The petitioner on 5 th August, 2008

applied under the Right to Information Act and in response thereto learnt

that though the marks secured by him were more than the marks of the last

selected candidate in the reserved category but the petitioner was not

selected owing to not having the requisite qualification. The petitioner

contending that Directorate of College Education, Government of

Rajasthan from where he had obtained a five year diploma, was amongst

the list of recognized institutes, on or about 23rd September, 2009 filed this

writ petition seeking mandamus to the respondents to declare the

petitioner as successful in the competitive examination and to appoint the

petitioner to the post of TGT Drawing Teacher in the respondent no.1.

Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been completed.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the order dated

22nd September, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.383/2009 titled Sohan Ram Vs.

Directorate of Education where also the question for consideration was

whether the diploma in Art/Drawing from the Directorate of College

Education, Government of Rajasthan, is amongst the courses recognized

for appointment in the department of the respondent no.1. The respondent

GNCTD in that case was directed to consider the petitioner therein for

appointment as an Art Teacher without insisting upon the Institute from

which the petitioner therein had qualified being duly recognized. The

counsel for the petitioner thus contends that the petitioner is also entitled

to the same relief.

3. The counsel for the respondents though not controverting the order

in Sohan Ram (supra) contends that the petitioner in the present case is

not entitled to the same relief because he approached the Court after

nearly two years of the declaration of the result. It is contended that the

writ petition was filed after one year from the information furnished to the

petitioner. It is contended that all the posts in pursuance to the

examination have since been filled up and there is no vacancy for which

the petitioner can even be considered. It is further stated that no panel is

maintained and if the fresh vacancy accrues, fresh advertisement inviting

applications shall be issued.

4. It is yet further contended that the Scheduled Caste Certificate

furnished by the petitioner being issued from the Government of

Rajasthan, the petitioner as per the judgment in Subhash Chandra Vs.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board 2009 (11) SCALE 278 is not

entitled to be considered in the reserved category, inasmuch as the

petitioner was required to furnish the Scheduled Caste Certificate issued

by the Delhi Government. It is further clarified that though in subsequent

order dated 13th November, 2009 in I.A. No.7-12 in Subhash Chandra

(supra) it was observed that the judgment in Subhash Chandra was

prospective but the said clarification was issued in the context of students

who had already applied and had been selected for counselling and cannot

be extended to persons such as the petitioner, clarification with respect to

whose educational eligibility even has been made only in order in Sohan

Ram case. The counsel for the respondent GNCTD further states that

since in this case the petitioner was not found eligible, the need for

considering whether he fulfilled the other requirements such as belonging

to the reserved category or not was not even gone into.

5. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the reason of his having

not furnished the requisite certificate of belonging to the reserved category

in which he had applied, was not raised by the respondents. He however

admits that he had applied along with the certificate issued by the

Government of Rajasthan.

6. Though the counsel for the petitioner has contended that vacancy in

pursuance to the advertisement and the examination aforesaid still exists

but after four years of the declaration of the result, I have no reason to

disbelieve the statement made by the counsel for the respondents.

7. The only relief which can thus be granted to the petitioner is to

declare that for future vacancies if any, the petitioner shall be considered

as having the educational qualification and be entitled to apply in

accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 02, 2011 bs