Hima Sood vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5840 Del

$~32
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



%                                               DECIDED ON: 17.11.2014



+                          W.P. (C) 7889/2014
       HIMA SOOD                                               ..... Petitioner

                           Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Advocate.

                           versus

       GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                      ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCTD, for Directorate of Education and DSSSB.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as 'CAT') dated 19.09.2014 which rejected her application - OA no.1752/2013. She had applied for the post of PGT (Biology) advertised by the Government of NCT of Delhi through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereafter referred to as 'DSSSB') being advertisement no.2/2010; the number of posts advertised were 12.

W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 1

2. The relevant facts are that the essential qualification for the post of PGT is a master's degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University. The rule states in this regard as follows: -

"Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits ___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Essential:

1. Master's Degree (or its equivalent Oriental Degree in the case of P.G.T.Sanskrit/Hindi) in the subject concerned from any recognized University.

2. Degree/Diploma in Training/Education.

Desirable:

3 years, experience of teaching in a College/Higher Secondary School/High School in the subject concerned."

3. The petitioner applied to participate in the examination conducted by the DSSSB and participated in the process. Later, upon declaration of results, she was asked to produce the documents on 27.12.2012. The Government of NCT of Delhi was of the opinion that since the petitioner did not possess the post graduate degree in either Botany or Zoology, but in Micro Biology, she was ineligible for appointment. It took a similar position in respect of others who also approached the CAT and whose applications were part of the common order; they had post graduate degree in Genetics, Bio Chemistry etc. In these circumstances, the petitioner and others approached the CAT for a direction that they ought to be considered

W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 2 for appointment.

4. The Government of NCT of Delhi resisted the application contending that though the advertisement generally mentioned that candidates with a post graduate degree in the concerned subject were eligible, the subjects in which the applicant/petitioner obtained post graduation, i.e., Micro Biology (in the petitioner's case) and other specialization such as Genetic and Bio Chemistry - in the case of others, could not be considered to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria. They relied upon the report of the expert committee constituted to examine this precise aspect. The report was submitted to the Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education. The Minutes of the meeting of the Select Committee were also produced before the CAT. The same reads as follows: -

"A meeting was held on 22.05.2013 at 02.00 PM under the chairpersonship of Smt. Sunita Kaushik, Additional Director of Education (School) in the Chamber of Addl. DE (School), to examine the issue of "the candidates having educational qualification in Master Degree in Bio-technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics are fit for the appointment of PGT Biology".

The following members were present:

1. Smt. Sunita Kaushik, Addl DE (School) ...

Chairperson

2. Prof. V.K. Bhasin, (Zoology) Deptt. Of Zoology, University of Delhi ...Member

3. Sh. S.D. Sharma (Biology) Principal, RPVV Rajniwas Marg ...Member

4. Dr. Bandita B. Mohanty (Biology) Sr. Lecturer, DIET Keshav Puram ...Member

W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 3 The agenda of the meeting was discussed in details and the committee decided unanimously the following:

1. The candidate for the post of PGT (Biology) must have M.Sc. degree in Botany or Zoology as they can impart the basic concept in Biology clearly to teach the students at the Senior Secondary level.

2. As the candidates go higher in any specialized branch (i.e., Bio Technology, Bio Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics) other than M.Sc. Botany or Zoology, they will not do justice to the basic subject of Biology upto Senior Secondary level. Further, specialized branches (i.e., Bio-Technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics) are only the small components of the syllabus or course contents taught to the students at Senior Secondary level.

3. As a PGT (Biology) the candidate with M.Sc., Botany/Zoology are more suitable to teach students the foundation course at the senior secondary level.

The meeting concluded with the vote of thanks to the chair.

The CAT after considering the submissions of the parties concluded that the view adopted by the Government of NCT of Delhi was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and in consonance with the Recruitment Rules. In doing so, the CAT was largely guided by the fact that the expert committee which went into the matter was technically competent to do so, and that the arguments of the petitioner that the opinion of the Committee constituted a change in the process of selection was not feasible.

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the CAT fell into error and that the GNCTD's opinion is flawed. It was submitted that

W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 4 even in the cases of those possessing post-graduate degree in subjects such as Botany or Zoology, it could well be argued that they too were not in a position to teach the subject in which they have not pursued the post graduation, i.e., Botany in the case of a post graduate in Zoology and Zoology in the case of a post graduate in Botany. It was secondly contended that those possessing degrees in specialized subjects such as Micro Biology, Bio Chemistry and Genetics also had to undergo examinations to clear general subjects like Botany or Zoology and nothing in the expert committee's recommendations indicated that this had been taken into account. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 3714, Madan Mohan Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., Civil Appeal No.1506/2008, decided on 22.02.2008 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, AIR 2008 SC 2103, to say that it is not open to the State or the recruiting agency to change the rules of the game once the advertisement is issued and that specific selection process has been indicated. It was urged that the view taken by the expert committee and adopted by the Government of NCT of Delhi in fact amounted to changing the eligibility of the candidates midstream. It was lastly urged that the committee did not take into consideration the important circumstance, i.e., that the petitioner and others like her too, in fact, underwent examinations in general subjects at the time of obtaining post-graduation. It was submitted that the committee's report nowhere indicates whether - and to what extent, general subjects were taught to those who were ultimately successful in obtaining the post graduation

W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 5 in Micro Biology, Bio Chemistry etc.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions. The first and third contentions really are part of the same submission. In this regard, the CAT considered the submissions of the applicant/petitioner and was of the opinion that since all aspects of the matter were gone into by the expert committee which was technically competent to do so, its jurisdiction to entertain and examine such matters in exercise of judicial review power was extremely limited. In doing so, the CAT confirmed to an established line of authority that Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in judgment over decisions of expert bodies, or over the decisions taken by the technically competent and empowered authorities. Though the petitioner's arguments appear to be facially merited, this Court cannot find any infirmity in the CAT's decision that such aspects are best left to the judgment of the expert bodies. In the absence of demonstrated caprice or patent consideration of irrelevant factors, or non-consideration of the materially relevant factors, the decision based upon such technical committee's recommendations cannot be interfered with.

7. So far as the other contention with respect to changing rules of the game - as it were, is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the submission. The recruitment process itself indicated through advertisement in clause (v) as follows: -

"Advertisement notice 2/10

(v) The Board makes provisional selection of the candidates on the basis of information and documents/certificates provided by the candidate in his/her application form and recommend the same to the indenting department. Further the Appointing

W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 6 Authority, i.e. the indenting department verifies and satisfies itself about the authenticity of documents/certificates and eligibility as per the Recruitment Rules before finally appointing the candidate(s). Therefore, the provisional selection of a candidate confers him/her no right of appointment unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such inquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respect for appointment to the post."

(emphasis supplied).

The result notice published on 6.8.2012 further reaffirmed its reservation in the following terms: -

"Result Notice No 192 dated 6.08.2012 "The selection of the above (12) Twelve candidates shall further be subject to candidates fulfilling the eligibility conditions of the post, as prescribed by the statutory Recruitment Rules and terms and conditions of advertisement as indicated in the advertisement inviting applications and also subject to thorough verification of their identity with reference to their photograph, signatures and handwriting etc. on the application form, admission certificates etc by the user department. The candidature of the candidate is liable to be cancelled by the user Department also, in case candidate is found not fulfilling the eligibility conditions or any other genuine reason. The Competent Authority of the user Department shall arrange to verify the correctness of information/documents as furnished in the application form after verification of the same from original documents/issuing authority. Mere inclusion of name in the result notice does not confer any right upon the candidate over the post."

(emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of these conditions, notified to the candidates - both well in advance and contemporaneously at the time of publication of the results, it can hardly be urged that there was any change in the

W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 7 recruitment process as is sought to be argued today. The reliance upon the Supreme Court's decisions is, therefore, not relevant.

9. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the CAT. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                                    S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J



                                                          VIPIN SANGHI, J
       NOVEMBER 17, 2014
       /vikas/




W.P.(C)7889/2014                                                         Page 8