Delhi High Court
Bindu Rani vs Govt Of Nct & Ors. on 14 May, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14th May, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 10781/2009
BINDU RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Susheel Sharma, Mr. Amandeep Joshi and
Mr. Tinu Bajwa, Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Prerna Shah Deo, Adv. for
Ms. Anjana Gasain, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. O.P. Sharma, Adv. for R2 & R3.
Mr. J.S. Vohra, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has prayed as under:-
(i) To direct the respondent (s) to rectify the mistake
committed by them / by Selection Committee while considering the
marks of the Petitioner Secured by her in J.B.T exam.
(ii) To direct the respondent (s) to appoint to the Petitioner as
Assistant Teacher and assign to her the seniority from the date
similarly selected candidates were appointed through the
Interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 08.01.2008.
(iii) To grant to the Petitioner all the consequential benefits
including arrears of pay from the date of selection and offer of
appointment to other candidate (s) who were given appointment
through the same selection process.
(iv) To award suitable cost of litigation in favour of the Petitioner
and against the respondent (s).
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for the Post of
Assistant Teacher advertised by the respondent School in the month of
November, 2007. Against 5 unreserved post of Assistant Teachers, a total
19 candidates applied, who were called for Interview by the duly constituted
Selection Committee, constituted under the Provisions of Rule 93 of Delhi
School Education Rules, 1973.
3. Having considered the average of marks allotted by the Selection
Committee to each candidate in the Interview and by adding the marks on
the basis of educational qualifications possessed by them a Statement on
Merits was prepared by the School Management, which bears the signatures
of all the Members of the Selection Committee.
4. In the said statement, which is available at Page 18(A), Annexure-P-2,
the the petitioner was shown at serial no. 12, who obtained overall marks as
45.3. Marks of the last selected candidate are 47.4.
5. Another candidate, namely Ms. Anju Sharma, who was not selected
filed a Writ Petition no. 7297/2009 challenging the selection process.
Ultimately, the same has been dismissed. The petitioner after obtaining a
copy of merit list from the said Ms. Anju Sharma noticed that her marks
towards educational qualification were not considered as per the Marking
Scheme.
7. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Ld. Sr. Adv. has drawn the attention of this Court to
Page 38, wherein it is mentioned as under:-
1. For Assistant Teacher.
(a). For Sr. Sec. / JBT Candidates
Post Secondary Senior J.B.T/ AdditionalQualification Experience Total Interview Grand
Secondary ETT B.A/B.Com/B.Sc./ Total
M.A/M.Sc./M.Phil./Ph.d
Asst. 10 20 30 10 10 80 20 100
Teacher
(b). For B.A./B.Ed.
Post Secondary Senior Graduate B.Ed. AdditionalQualification Experience Total Interview Grand
Secondary B.A./B.Com/ M.A/M.Sc./M.Phil./Ph.d Total
B.Sc.
Asst. 10 20 10 20 10 10 80 20 100
Teacher
8. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that grand total of marks were 100. The
petitioner got 20 marks in interview and against the Column JBT/ETT,
where the grand total is 30, whereas the petitioner got 20 Marks. Therefore,
respondents have not considered her JBT Certificate while calculating the
Marks, otherwise, she would have got weightage of 30 marks, instead of 20
marks.
9. She further submits that due to this error on the part of the School
Management while preparing the merit list, she was shown at VIII Position
by the School Management. Therefore, petitioner filed the instant petition
and sought rectification of the error and on rectification of error, services of
the last selected candidate i.e. Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, respondent no. 4 may be
affected.
10. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that respondent no. 4 was not even
eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher as per the recruitment Rules. It is
further submitted that as per the Minutes of the Selection Committee dated
08.01.2008 (Annexure P-1) at page 16, the appointment is to be made in
order of Merit.
11. It is further submits that in B.Ed, she secured 1099 marks out of total
1500 i.e. 73.26%. Therefore if 73.26% is divided by 20% that makes it a
total of 14.6%, whereas the respondent School has calculated it as 11.6%.
Therefore, this percentage is of neither JBT nor of B.Ed.
12. Respondent no.1 has filed response to the instant petition and
submitted that the present petition has been filed in collusion with one
Ms. Anju Sharma, who earlier had filed the W.P.(C) no. 7297/2009, happens
to be relative of petitioner and the instant petition is after thought.
13. The preliminary objection taken by respondent no. 1 is that instant
petition has been filed belatedly. The result of the alleged test has been
declared on 08.01.2008. The services of all the selected candidates have
been confirmed by the Management. Whatever documents filed by the
candidates have been considered and perused by the Management, on
consideration thereof, accordance with the Rules and Regulations, the
markings were given.
14. Moreover, the perusal of these documents were not in the hands of
any single person but it was perused by a team of persons consisting of
previous Chairman S. Mansa Singh, Sh. S.P. Singh, Director of Education's
nominee, Education Officer Zone III and Mrs. Shanti Gautam, Subject
Expert, Principal, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya Kalyan Vas, Smt. Usha
Gupta, then Principal, Guru Nanak Girls Sr. Sec. School. All the aforesaid
persons scrutinized the documents and they attended to the candidates, who
appeared in the Interview and marking was done as per the scheme for the
recruitment of Assistant Teacher.
15. It is further stated that the list of selected candidates were not only
displayed on the Notice Board, but copy thereof were sent to the Office of
Directorate of Education etc. If the petitioner had any grievance, she would
have raised objection within reasonable time. Result of the Interview was
announced on 08.10.2008. The petitioner filed the Instant petition
somewhere in August, 2009. The services of the selected candidates have
been confirmed. The fact remains that she did not raise objection within
reasonable time, it shows that she did not have any grievance.
16. As per the report available, the petitioner is a Graduate with B.Ed
Degree. Therefore, as per the calculation, the sum total of her average
percentage was 33.3% and 12% marks were obtained by her in Interview.
Accordingly, the grand total comes to 45.3%. In fact the petitioner was
having 58% in B.Ed as mentioned by her in B.Ed mark sheet given at Page
34. But due to some typographical error, 0.69 was written on the selection
and marking of B.Ed status in inadvertently written as 58.69%.
17. In the next column, the weightage of marks is given as 11.6% which
accounted as per the B.A., B.Ed Qualification of the candidate. This mistake
of adding of 0.69 does not affect the weightage. Accordingly, weightage
comes to 11.60 for 58% as well as 58.69%. Therefore, weightage of the
percentage of 11.6 is correctly taken for percentage 58%.
18. In view of the above submissions, I am of the considered opinion that
no error was committed by the respondents in calculation of the marks. I
find no merit in the present petition.
19. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed.
20. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 14, 2012
Jg
