Delhi High Court
Shri Syed Moiz Quadri vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 29 April, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.7844/1999
% 29th April, 2015
SHRI SYED MOIZ QUADRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.Atyab Siddiqui, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.D.Salwan, Advocate for R-1 & 2.
Mr.Raghuvendra Mohan Bajaj,
Advocate for R- 3 & 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Review Petition No.16/2015 & C.M.No.674/2015
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioner, a teacher in the respondent no.3/Anglo Arabic Senior
Secondary School, seeking the relief that termination of his services by the
undated letter of December, 1999, stating that the petitioner is not qualified,
be quashed. The petitioner in the writ petition had prayed that it should be
declared that he had the necessary qualification for being appointed to the post
of T.G.T (Maths) in the respondent no.3/School and at which post he was
appointed.
2. Before I turn to the merits with respect to the present review petition
and the application seeking condonation of delay of 349 days, it is required to
be noted that this writ petition was disposed of on 12.11.2013 by passing the
following order:-
" 1. Taking on record the letter dated 11.11.2013 and with which the
respondent No.3 is held bound, and the position in the said letter will be
implemented by respondent No.3, the writ petition is accordingly for that
reason not pressed by taking finality of the letter dated 11.11.2013.
2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
3. The writ petition when the same was disposed of on 12.11.2013 had
come up for regular hearing in the regular board after admission. Nobody
appeared for the review petitioner/Director of Education when the order was
passed on 12.11.2013. The order dated 12.11.2013 records that the
respondent no.3/School had issued a letter dated 11.11.2013, by which
petitioner's services were held not to be terminated and he was to continue
with his services with the respondent no.3/School.
4. By this review petition, it is averred that the order dated 12.11.2013 was
obtained by practicing a fraud upon this Court and the said order be recalled,
inasmuch as, petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as T.G.T
(Maths) in the respondent no.3/School.
5. Let us now examine what was the lack of qualification which was
stated by the review petitioner/Director of Education/respondent no.2 in its
counter affidavit to the writ petition, and the review petition will also have to
be seen in accordance with the said averments. The relevant defence of the
respondent no.2/Director of Education, as per its counter affidavit dated
09.2.2000 is contained in paras 1 & 2 of the preliminary objections and para 2
of the reply on merits, and which read as under:-
" Preliminary Objections:
1. That the present Writ Petition is not at all maintainable, and has to be
dismissed with costs as the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria of being
T.G.T. (Maths). The post was invited for the T.G.T. (Maths) for which the
interviews were held. The recruitment rules are very clear that for the above
said post the qualification required is B.Sc. Maths as the Main subject and
Physics and Chemistry as the Subsidiary subjects.
2. That the petitioner is having the degree of B.Sc. (Physics) with Chemistry
and Maths as subsidiary subjects. That the petitioner was appointed by
default. When the facts regarding his qualification was brought to the notice,
the respondents immediately took the action and issued the removal orders
dated 8.12.1999 with immediate effect. The petitioner was also found to be
over aged having dated birth 3.3.1968 as per the Recruitment Rules.
Parawise Reply:
2. That the contents of para No. 2 are denied. That the contents are also
denied for fulfillment of recruitment Rules. That the petitioner was degree
holder of B.Sc. (Phy.) with Maths and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects,
whereas as per the recruitment rules the candidates of qualification of B.Sc.
(Maths) as main subject with physics and chemistry as a subsidiary subjects
are eligible for the post of T.G.T. (Maths). The petitioner has failed to
qualify on this account and as soon as it came to the notice of the Education
Department, it issued a letter dated 08.12.1999. The Petitioner having date of
birth is 3.3.1968 was found to be overage as per the Recruitment Rules. to
the school authority to remove the petitioner with immediate effect. That the
petitioner was found over-age as per the Recruitment Rules to the school
authority to remove the petitioner with immediate effect. That the petitioner
was found over-age as per the Recruitment Rules." (emphasis is mine)
6. In the review petition, the review petitioner/Director of Education has
similarly stated as per paras 5 & 6 of the review petition and also added an
additional requirement that the graduation degree must be of Hons. Course
and not Pass Course. These paras read as under:-
" 5. That Petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as set out in the Recruitment
Rules, applicable at the time his appointment. The qualification required
for the post of TGT (Math) was B.Sc (Hons.) with Math alongwith
Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects. However, Petitioner's
qualification was of B.Sc (Phy) Hons. With Math and Chemistry as
subsidiary subjects. On scrutiny it was also discovered that the
experience certificates submitted by Petitioner were forged as he was
never appointed in the schools where Petitioner claimed he had taught. It
was after thorough scrutiny and verification that the services of
Petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 24.12.1999.
6. That Petitioner submitted his representation to Respondent School on
03.10.2013 to confirm his appointment as TGT (Math) and also grant
relaxation in age so that Petitioner could be considered for promotion as
PGT (Physics). The said representation was considered by Managing
Committee of Respondent School on 31.10.2013 and the same was
accepted by the respondent school on the condition that the Petitioner
will give undertaking that he will withdraw the writ petition on the next
date of hearing. It is pertinent to mention that in the meeting held on
31.10.2013, no Director's nominee was present. Thus, the action of
petitioner and respondent school is in connivance with each other and at
the back of applicant respondent, the Department of Education. A copy
of minutes of meeting dated 31.10.2013 is annexed hereto as
ANNEXURE R-1/3." (underlining added)
7. It is therefore clear that the issue in the writ petition essentially was
with respect to qualifications of the petitioner for being appointed as a teacher
to the post of T.G.T (Maths) in the respondent no.3/School, and as to whether
the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria because he was overage. As
per the additional averment in the review petition it is also stated that
petitioner ought to have had a graduation degree in B.Sc (Hons.) with Maths
as the main subject. At this stage, I would like to put on record that in the
counter affidavit which was filed by the respondent no.2/Director of
Education in the writ petition, the expression 'Hons.' after B.Sc has been
struck off, and what is only pleaded is that the petitioner did not have B.Sc
with Maths as the main subject. However, only for the sake of the new
argument of the respondent no.2/Director of Education taking that the
expression 'Hons.' after the expression 'B.Sc' is not struck off in the original
counter affidavit of the respondent no.2/Director of Education, let us examine
the question as to whether the petitioner was required firstly to have a
graduation degree in B.Sc (Hons.) and secondly with Maths as the main
subject.
8. Admittedly, the recruitment rule for appointment to T.G.T (Maths) is as
per the recruitment rule filed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the
respondent no.2/Director of Education, and the relevant portion of this
recruitment rule reads as under:-
"Annexure 'B'
Recruitment Rules for the Post of TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER IN EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, Delhi Administration, Delhi.
Name of the post Number Classification Scale of pay Whether Age Limit
of Posts Selection for direct
post or recruits
non-
selection
post
TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER
1. English 11946* Group 'C' Rs. 1400-40- Selection Below 30
1600-50-2300- years
EB-60-2600 (Relaxable
upto 40 Yrs.
2.Mathematics Non-Gazetted in case of
3.Social Science, Non-Ministarial female
and Physical candidates
Science/Natural and relaxable
Science for
employees of
Delhi Admn.
upto 40 Yrs.
for General
candidates
and 45 years
for SC/ST
candidates).
Whether benefit Educational and other qualifications required for Whether age Period of
of added years of direct recruits. & probation
service educational
admissible under qualification
rule 30 of the prescribed
CCS(Pension) for direct
Rules, 1972 recruits will
apply in the
case of
promotees
No I. A Bachelor's Degree (Pass/Hons) from a Age : NO Two
recognized University or equivalent having years
secured atleast 45% marks in aggregate of I.Q : Yes
having studied to a level not lower than
ancillary/subsidiary subjects indicated in any of
the following groups.
I. English as main subject at graduation level
with one of the following subjects :-
(i) History (ii) Pol. Science (iii) Economics (iv)
Commerce (v) Geography (vi) Agriculture (vii)
Horticulture.
2. Mathematics as main subject at graduation
level with one of the following as second
subjects :-
(i) Chemistry (ii) Physics (iii) Biology (iv)
Botany (v) Computer Science (vi) Zoology (vii)
English (viii) History (ix) Pol. Science (x)
Economics (xi) Commerce (xii) Geography (xiii)
Agriculture (xiv) Statistics
3. Social Science : Atleast two of the following
main subjects at graduation level : (i) History (ii)
Pol. Science (iii) Economics (iv) Commerce (v)
Geography (vi) Agriculture (vii) Horticulture.
"
9. A reading of the aforesaid recruitment rule shows that there is no
requirement of a teacher to be appointed as T.G.T (Maths) to have an Hons.
degree, inasmuch as, the expression which is found in the recruitment rule is,
that the person must have a bachelor's degree in Pass/Hons. Course i.e either a
Pass degree or an Hons. degree. Therefore, it is not permissible for the
respondent no.2/Director of Education to contend that Hons. degree is
required, and it is for this reason that in the original counter affidavit filed by
the respondent no.2/Director of Education, the expression 'Hons.' was struck
off. I am therefore constrained to observe that the present is a case where
some officers in the respondent no.2/Director of Education seem to have made
a personal vendetta drive against the petitioner for victimizing the petitioner,
and which goes to the extent of filing of false affidavits requiring an Hons.
degree, and which clearly amounts to perjury. Therefore, the stand of the
respondent no.2/Director of Education that Hons. degree is compulsorily
required is ex facie false in terms of the recruitment rule relied upon by the
respondent no.2/Director of Education itself.
10. The petitioner admittedly has a graduation degree in B.Sc, and which
has Maths as one of the subjects, and since there is no requirement of an Hons.
degree once one of the subjects in B.Sc is Maths, Maths also will be treated as
one of the main subjects in the graduation degree. In a B.Sc Pass Course there
is no subject of Maths which is there as a main subject and which is in Hons.
course. It is, therefore, incorrect on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 2 to
argue that the petitioner is unqualified because the petitioner did not have a
Hons. graduation degree with Maths as the main subject.
11. So far as the contention of the respondent no.2/Director of Education of
the petitioner being overage is concerned, undoubtedly, the petitioner was
overage because he was around 31 years and 3 months, whereas the age limit
is 30 years, however, the petitioner has filed as Annexure P-10 to his rejoinder
affidavit a circular of the Director of Education itself dated 12.12.1988, and
which states that the experience of teaching in a school has to be added to the
maximum age limit and relaxation in age has accordingly to be granted, and
which relaxation can go in fact to the extent of 15 years. The petitioner had
admittedly worked with the respondent no.3/School as T.G.T (Maths) on ad
hoc basis for a period of two years before his regular appointment in the
respondent no.3/School, and therefore the period of two years will have to be
added to the age of 30 years, and hence the respondent no.2/Director of
Education is incorrect in arguing that the petitioner was overage.
12. I am at this stage constrained to note that actually the present review
petition, and which has effectively forced this Court to decide this writ
petition on merits is on account of negligence of the respondent no.2/Director
of Education in not being represented when the matter was called out in the
regular board and disposed of in terms of the order dated 12.11.2013. Even
the review petition is filed almost after one year i.e after a delay of 349 days
and this clearly shows that the respondent no.2/Director of Education feels
that it can sleep over the matter, insist on not appearing in the court when the
matter is called out in the regular board, and thereafter can file the review
petition effectively for arguing the main case on merits on the defence of lack
of eligibility criteria which is not even found to be so as per the recruitment
rule and its own circular dated 12.12.1988 as regards extension/age relaxation.
I think this is quite unacceptable and this has resulted in wastage of judicial
time of this Court, and which is only because of complete lethargy and
negligence of the respondent no.2/Director of Education in pursuing its case,
and in which case there was no defence at all on merits that the petitioner was
overage or that the petitioner was unqualified.
13. In view of the above, though I have factually re-heard the whole
petition on merits, review petition and the condonation of delay application
will stand dismissed because there are no grounds for entertaining the review
petition much less with a delay of 349 days. I may also note that this case was
argued on 16.4.2015 when in view of the facts as stated above, it was
suggested to the counsel appearing for the review petitioner/Director of
Education/respondent no.2 that petitioner who has worked for around 16 years
in the respondent no.3/School should not be targeted at the instance of some
individuals in the office of the Director of Education, and accordingly an
adjournment was granted for today for the Director of Education to consider
that why the review petition and the condonation of delay application should
not be pressed, but counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 on the first call and even
after taking a passover for instructions has again insisted on arguing the
review petition on merits.
14. In view of the above, the review petition and the condonation of delay
application is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Costs shall be paid to the
petitioner by the respondent no.2/Director of Education positively within a
period of four weeks from today. Since I am dismissing the review petition
and the condonation of delay application with costs, I am not taking any strict
action against the officer in the Director of Education who has filed a false
affidavit and committed perjury to this Court by stating that there is a mandate
of the petitioner in terms of the recruitment rule to have an Hons. degree,
though as discussed above, there is no requirement in the recruitment rule of
having a Hons. degree, and for this reason, the expression 'Hons.' had in fact
been scratched out in the original counter affidavit filed by the respondent
no.2/Director of Education. Copy of this judgment however be placed before
the Director of Education to note that its officers are behaving irresponsibly in
this case, and an affidavit that this judgment has been placed before the
Director of Education be filed by the Director of Education himself in this
Court within a period of four weeks from today.
APRIL 29, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
