Delhi High Court
Mrs. Vineeta Tejpal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2750/2014
% 21st January, 2015
MRS. VINEETA TEJPAL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. Maitri, Adv. with Ms. Radhika
Chandrashekhar, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Tejpal, in person.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nikita Khetrapal, Adv. for Ms.
Nidhi Raman, Adv. for R-1 and 2.
Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Adv. for R-
4.
Mr. Vibhu Shankar, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No. 2750/2014 & CM No. 15447/2014 (for amendment of the
writ petition) & CM No. 8543/14 (for vacation of stay) & CM No.
5711/2014 (stay)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
was filed by the petitioner originally impugning the recommendation of the
W.P.(C) No. 2750/2014 Page 1 of 6
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 7.4.2014 which
recommended promotion of the respondent no.4/Ms. Poonam Kaushik to the
post of Post Graduate Teacher-PGT (Maths) with the respondent no.3-
school. In this writ petition, an interim order was passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court on 1.5.2014 noting the contention of the petitioner that
the respondent no.4/Ms. Poonam Kaushik who has been recommended for
being appointed by the DPC on 7.4.2014 is a wrong decision inasmuch as
Ms. Poonam Kaushik was junior to the petitioner.
2. After pleadings were completed in this writ petition, petitioner
has filed an amendment application being CM No. 15447/2014 for amending
the writ petition to contend that in fact respondent no.4 was not eligible to be
appointed as PGT (Maths) in the respondent no.3-school, inasmuch as, the
Masters Degree obtained by the respondent no.4 from the Annamalai
University would be an invalid degree and which as per the petitioner is so
said to have been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of
Annamalai University rep. by Registrar Vs. Secy. to Govt. Infn. and
Tourism Dept. & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 590 and which judgment has been
relied upon by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court vide its judgment
dated 31.10.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 31653/2010.
3. I must state that originally three arguments, and which were
W.P.(C) No. 2750/2014 Page 2 of 6
subsequently not pressed, were urged on behalf of the petitioner before this
Court to deny the appointment to the respondent no.4 to the post of PGT
(Maths) and which were:-
(i) There was no sanctioned post of PGT (Maths) in the year 2012 when
both the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 became eligible and this
sanctioned post came into existence in view of the approval letter of the
Director of Education dated 28.9.2013.
(ii) The second diametrically opposite argument which was raised was
that it is not as if that there was no sanctioned post of PGT (Maths) in the
respondent no.3-school, but as the respondent no.3-school is an aided
school, appointment could not have been made to the post of PGT (Maths)
till 28.9.2013 and only when the Director of Education gave its approval.
(iii) After the first two arguments were given up, and the second argument
having been given up inasmuch as DPC was actually held on 7.4.2014 ie
after the approval of the Director of Education on 28.9.2013, the issue which
remained was whether it was the petitioner who was senior for being
appointed to the post of PGT (Maths) as she had the requisite eligibility
qualifications of five years' experience in the post and a Masters Degree
from a recognized University prior to respondent no.4 or that the respondent
no.4 had this qualification prior to the petitioner. With regard to this third
W.P.(C) No. 2750/2014 Page 3 of 6
argument it transpired that respondent no.4 already had a Masters Degree
from Annamalai University obtained in the year 2002, and she completed
five years of qualifying service on 1.1.2012 whereas the petitioner
completed the requisite qualifications after she obtained the Masters Degree
in October 2012 ie after January 2012 when the respondent no.4 duly
complied with the eligibility criteria. This third argument was hence also
given up.
4. The fourth argument and the final argument which is raised,
after three arguments were given up, is that the Masters Degree obtained by
the respondent no.4 from the Annamalai University stands invalidated as per
the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Annamalai University (supra)
and therefore the respondent no.4 became ineligible for being appointed to
the post of PGT (Maths). It is this fourth argument only which now has to
be considered by the Court to decide the entitlement of the petitioner with
respect to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
At this stage, I may state that there is no opposition to the application
for amendment of the writ petition being CM No. 15447/2014 to add the
aspects of the fourth argument, and which is thus allowed, and therefore, the
fourth argument as stated above which is raised in the amended writ petition
is accordingly being considered by this Court.
W.P.(C) No. 2750/2014 Page 4 of 6
5(i) Let us now examine the fourth argument and whether the
petitioner is correct in contending that all Masters Degrees obtained from
Annamalai University from the years 1995 to 2007 stand invalidated by the
Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Annamalai University (supra)
and hence the Masters Degree of respondent no.4 obtained is invalid.
(ii) This argument of the petitioner is to be rejected because the
respondent no.4 obtained the Masters Degree in the year 2002 i.e between
1995 to 2007 is not invalid inasmuch as all the Masters Degrees were not
invalidated by the Supreme Court as is sought to be urged on behalf of the
petitioner. This is discussed hereinafter.
6. The argument urged on behalf of the petitioner by placing
reliance upon the judgment in the case of Annamalai University (supra) is
clearly fallacious because in the facts of Annamalai University (supra)'s
case the Masters Degrees which were obtained from the years 1995 to 2007
from Annamalai University were invalidated because such Masters Degrees
were obtained without first completing the three years bachelor course
inasmuch as the bachelor degree course which was being conducted by this
University and which had to be of three years, however the same was
converted by the University into a single year course. In view of this factual
position, which showed that Masters Degrees were obtained without
W.P.(C) No. 2750/2014 Page 5 of 6
obtaining the bachelor degree having a three years course, hence the Masters
Degrees obtained from the Annamalai University from the year 1995 to
2007 were quashed inasmuch as it was a sine qua non that the qualification
of the bachelor degree had to be obtained before obtaining a Masters Degree.
7. However, in the present case, it not the case of the petitioner,
and which could not be otherwise, that the Masters Degree obtained by the
respondent no.4 from Annamalai University was without completing a three
years bachelor degree course since the respondent no.4 has in fact completed
the three years bachelor degree course during 1993 to 1996 from Maharishi
Dayanand University, Rohtak. Accordingly, I reject the argument urged on
behalf of the petitioner allegedly that the respondent no.4 is not eligible
because the Masters Degree of respondent no.4 obtained from the
Annamalai University is illegal and allegedly quashed by the Supreme Court
in the case of Annamalai University (supra).
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and
therefore the same is dismissed. Interim orders dated 1.5.2014 are vacated.
No costs.
JANUARY 21, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
