Uma Kumari vs The Chairman Managing Committee, ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5710 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 s
+                      W.P.(C) 5675/2013

                                              Decided on: 12.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
UMA KUMARI                                            ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with
                       Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate

                       versus

THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL & ORS.
                                               ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with
                  Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal,
                  Advocates for R-1/School.
                  Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.
                  Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate for R-4.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia that the appointment of the respondent No.4 be declared as

bad in law and her appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be

quashed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the IAF Educational

and Cultural Society had issued an advertisement dated 31.01.2012

for recruitment of teaching and administrative staff, including the

appointment of teachers to the post of TGT (Hindi), which is the

subject matter of the present petition. The required qualification for

the post of TGT (Hindi) was graduation in Hindi (Hons.) with 50%

marks and Bachelors Degree in Education. The applicants were

expected to submit their forms to the respondents by 09.02.2012.

The eligible candidates had to undergo a written test on 09.02.2012

and those, who would qualify in the written test, were to participate

in a personal interview.

3. It is the petitioner's case that she had appeared in the written

examination on the date and time mentioned in the advertisement

and she had successfully cleared the said examination. Vide

intimation dated 24.02.2012, the petitioner was called to appear for

an interview on 02.03.2012. The petitioner had appeared before the

Selection Board on the assigned day for an interview, whereafter she

kept waiting for the results to be declared by the respondent

No.1/School. However, when the petitioner accessed the website of

the respondent No.1/School, she discovered that her name was not

included as one of the successful candidates.

4. Aggrieved by the results declared by the respondent

No.1/School for the post of TGT (Hindi), the petitioner had a legal

notice dated 9.4.2012 issued to the respondent No.1/School stating

inter alia that she possessed the desired educational qualifications

and had also cleared the written examination and participated in the

interview but was not selected, in violation of the rules and

regulations. It was also stated that as per the Notification dated

23.08.2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (in

short 'NCTE'), it is mandatory for a candidate to qualify in the

Teacher Eligibility Test (in short 'TET') which is conducted by the

appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed in

that regard and if the School had appointed a teacher, who did not

qualify the TET, then such an appointment was invalid.

5. When the petitioner failed to receive any response from the

respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court,

registered as W.P.(C) 3025/2012 praying inter alia that the

respondent No.1/School be directed to appoint her to the post of TGT

(Hindi).

6. The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated

18.05.2012, with directions to the respondent No.1/School that it

should respond to the legal notice dated 09.04.2012, by passing a

speaking order and the same should be communicated to the

petitioner. The aforesaid order was passed at the stage of admission

and at that time, the School was not represented before the court. In

the meantime, the respondent No.1/School on its own sent a reply

dated 19.5.2012 to the legal notice issued by the petitioner, denying

the allegations leveled against it and stating inter alia that the

petitioner was not found fit for selection to the post of TGT (Hindi)

and was therefore, not selected. It was also stated that the Selection

Committee had considered the candidature of all the candidates

objectively and thereafter, selected the eligible candidates. Aggrieved

by the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent No.1/School, the

petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. The leitmotif of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the

subject post is that the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010

prescribes that a school cannot appoint teachers to the post of

Primary Regular Teacher (PRT) or TGT (Class I to VIII) when they do

not possess the TET certificate. He submits that the petitioner herein

possesses the TET certificate issued by the Haryana Education Board,

but the respondent No.4, who has been selected to the subject post,

does not possess the said qualification and therefore her appointment

ought to be quashed.

8. Ms. Palli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/School

disputes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and

draws the attention of the Court to the Circular dated 06.03.2012

issued by the respondent No.2/CBSE, wherein it is stated that the

TET conducted by the Central Government would apply to schools

under the Central Government and Union Territories without

Legislature, and that the Managements of the schools affiliated to the

Boards such as CBSE, ICSE etc. may also opt for the TET conducted

by the Central Government. Learned counsel states that the

Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE was directed to be

implemented by the CBSE only on 06.03.2012, whereas the subject

advertisement was issued prior thereto, on 31.01.2012 and the

selection process was completed by 02.03.2012, which was also prior

in time and therefore, possession of a TET certificate was not

mandatory for the candidates at that point in time.

9. Supporting the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 adds that though possession of a TET certificate was

not mandatory prior to issuance of the Circular dated 6.3.2012, his

client had passed the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test held in

November, 2011, as stipulated in the Notification dated 23.8.2010

issued by the NCTE. In support of the said submission, learned

counsel refers to page 215 of the paper book, where he has filed a

copy of the Certificate dated 25.11.2011 issued by the Board of High

School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, in

favour of the respondent No.4, certifying inter alia that she had

passed Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test held in November, 2011

(Upper Primary Level). He further states that subsequently in the

year 2013, the respondent No.4 had passed Central Teacher Eligibility

Test (in short 'CTET') and was issued a Certificate dated 02.09.2013,

that is placed at page 216 of the paper book.

10. In view of the documents placed on record by the respondent

No.4 that include a TET certificate of Upper Primary Level issued in

her favour by the State of U.P. and a CTET certificate issued in her

favour by the CBSE, it is manifestly clear that she satisfies the

requirements of the Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the

NCTE. Moreover as is apparent from a perusal of the advertisement

enclosed with the writ petition, at the time when the subject

advertisement was issued by the respondent No.1/School, inviting

applications to fill-up the posts of TGT (Hindi), it was not mandatory

for the candidates to possess the TET certificate. The only

qualifications that a candidates was required to possess was

graduation in Hindi (Hons.) with 50% marks and a Bachelor's degree

in Education and the respondent no.4 fulfilled both the qualifications.

11. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the copies

of the certificates filed by the respondent No.4 ought to be verified by

the respondent No.1/School, is found to be rather incongruent in the

light of the fact that on her part, the petitioner has chosen not to file

any such certificate to substantiate her claim that she possesses a

TET certificate purportedly issued by the State of Haryana. This

demand is all the more discordant when the sole argument advanced

on behalf of the petitioner to assail the appointment of the

respondent No.4 is non-possession of the TET certificate by her. Had

the petitioner wanted to file the said certificate, she had an

opportunity to do so alongwith the writ petition and having failed to

do so at that stage, she could have done so while filing the rejoinder

to the counter affidavits filed by the respondent no.1/School and

respondent No.4. However, for reasons best known to her, the

petitioner elected not to do so. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner

cannot insist that the respondent No.4 be directed to produce her

original certificates for purposes of verification.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is

of the opinion that the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the

post of TGT (Hindi) does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness

for interference in the present proceedings. The writ petition is

dismissed as being devoid of merits while leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.

                                                      (HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 12, 2014                                        JUDGE
rkb