Delhi High Court

Baboo Lal Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 18 September, 2015

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
              Rev.Pet.No.346/2015 and CM No.13184/2015 in
+                        W.P.(C) 7309/2013
%                         Date of decision : 18th September, 2015
       BABOO LAL SHARMA                              ..... Petitioner
                    Through :            Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Md.
                                         Asfar Heyat Warsi and Mr.
                                         Varun Chandiok, Advs.

                          versus

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.        ... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. Arun Panwar, Adv. for Mr.
                               Raman Duggal, Standing
                               Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD/R-
                               1&2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
                           JUDGMENT (ORAL)

GITA MITTAL, J.

CM No.13184/2015 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in

filing the accompanying review petition is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

Rev.Pet.No.346/2015

1. By way of the present review petition, the petitioner seeks

review of the judgment dated 9th April, 2015 passed by this court

dismissing the writ petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

respondents that no reply is necessary inasmuch as the review

petitioner is relying on the judgment dated 7th August, 2013 passed in

W.P.(C)No.1520/2012, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v.

Sachin Gupta and a batch of connected writ petitions. It is submitted

by learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are not at

issue with the petitioner on the fact that the judgment of Sachin

Gupta would clearly apply to the case of the petitioner and that the

writ petition filed by him deserves to be allowed for this reason alone.

Learned counsel points out that the correct paras of this precedent

were not pointed out to the court resulting in the judgment under

review.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are in a narrow

compass. The petitioner was seeking appointment as a teacher to the

post of TGT (Sanskrit) by the respondent no. 1. The essential

eligibility criteria for the same was possession of a Bachelor Degree

(Honours/Pass) or equivalent from any recognized University and

should have secured 45% marks in aggregate. In his Bacheler‟s

degree, the petitioner had secured 44.27 marks in aggregate which

were treated as being below the criteria of possessing the minimum

45% marks in aggregate at the graduation level.

3. For the purposes of appreciating the submissions of the review

petitioner, we set out hereunder the qualifications of the petitioner. He

is stated to have undertaken a B.A. Degree course with History

Political Science and Sociology from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati

University, Ajmer between 1996-98. The petitioner relies on

Ordinance 203 of the MDS University, Ajmer, to the effect that "any

candidate who has passed the B.A.(Pass and Hons.) B.Sc. (Pass and

Hons.) B.Sc. (Ag) or B.Com (Pass and Hons.) exam of the university

or an examination recognized by the university as equivalent thereto

shall be allowed to present himself for examination in any subsequent

year in any of one of the optional subjects prescribed for the B.A.

examination and not already taken by him at the degree examination,

and if successful will be given a certificate to the effect. Such a

candidate shall be required to appear in all the papers of that subject

in one and the same year, provided that his is not registered for any

other examination of the university in the same years". It is submitted

by the petitioner that as permitted under the rules of the said

university, he applied for the additional course with Sanskrit as the

additional optional subject which was cleared by him in 2005. As a

result, the petitioner completed the subject in question i.e. Sanskrit in

all parts in which this subject was taught during graduation course

with sanskrit. In the meantime, the petitioner also cleared his post-

graduation as well and a degree of M.A. in Sanskrit was conferred

upon him in July, 2002 by the MDS University, Ajmer. In 2007, the

petitioner passed his B.ED examination from the university of

Kashmir, Sri Nagar with first class distinction inter alia for teaching

method Sanskrit.

4. The respondent had issued an advertisement for the post of

TGT (Sanskrit) in October, 2007 in the schools of Government of

NCT of Delhi run by the Directorate of Education. The petitioner

appeared in the examination conducted by the respondent on 11 th

May, 2008 and his name had appeared in the list of successful

candidates in the results notified on 29th October, 2008.

5. On 10th April, 2009, the petitioner was issued a memorandum

of offer of appointment. His documents were scrutinised on 28 th

April, 2009. As no information was received by him, the petitioner

sought information under Right to Information Act on the 8th of July

2009. It is only thereafter on 24th September, 2009, the respondent

no.1 passed an order directing cancellation of the candidature of the

petitioner on the ground that the B.A. Additional course undergone by

him could not be considered as rendering the petitioner eligible for

appointment to the post.

6. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal

by way of O.A.No.3628/2009 seeking a direction to the respondent for

appointment and posting on the post of TGT (Sanskrit). By its order

dated 6th October, 2009, the tribunal directed the respondent to

dispose of the petitioner‟s representation. As no response was

received from the respondent, yet another O.A.No.2787/2009 was

filed by the petitioner which was decided in his favour by the

judgment dated 11th March, 2001.

7. The respondent assailed the judgment of the tribunal by way of

W.P.(C)No.6006/2010. The same was considered and by an order

dated 4th October, 2010, the matter was remanded to the tribunal. The

matter was decided again by the tribunal on 21st December, 2010

directing the respondent no.1 to reconsider the matter and take a final

decision in consultation with respondent no.3.

8. On 1st March, 2011, respondent no.1 sought clarification on the

issue of eligibility of the petitioner from the respondent no.3. Despite

the clarification given by respondent no.3 on 26 th April, 2011, the

respondent no.1 rejected the petitioner‟s candidature by an order dated

27th May, 2011 without giving any explanation. The petitioner

assailed the said action by third petition before the Central

Administrative Tribunal which unfortunately was rejected by an order

dated 9th August, 2012. The petitioner‟s review application was

dismissed on 30th November, 2012 by the tribunal resulting in filing of

the present writ petition.

9. The writ petition also came to be dismissed by this court by the

judgment dated 9th April, 2015. This court was of the view that the

acquisition of a B.A. additional course was not relevant for the

purposes of assessing the petitioner‟s eligibility for appointment to the

post of TGT (Sanskrit) in terms of the recruitment rules. Furthermore,

no benefit can be taken by the petitioner of his having been

successfully completed the M.A. (Sanskrit) degree course for the

purposes of his engagement as TGT (Sanskrit). This court in the

judgment dated 9th April, 2015 was of the view that the eligibility

criteria has to be strictly applied and the petitioner‟s candidature was

rightly rejected for the reason that he had not secured 45% marks in

the additional B.A. Degree course and that he had not undertaken

Sanskrit as part of his subjects in that course.

10. Our attention is drawn to the consideration of this very aspect

by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the judgment dated 7th August,

2013 in Sachin Gupta which is in the following terms :

"41. All universities in India do not offer a particular elective subject in all three years‟ of graduation course as in the case of Nainika, Vikram Singh and Sachin Gupta,

where Delhi University did not teach English/Hindi/Economics in all three years of B.A. program/B.Com (H) course (s) conducted by it. If the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 is given a literal interpretation, all such candidates who have studied concerned subject i.e. the subject for which they have applied from the Universities which are not teaching said subject in all three years‟ of Graduation course offered by them would be rendered ineligible for appointment to the post of T.G.T. despite the fact they have studied the concerned subject in all parts/years in which the subject is taught by the university and have a good understanding thereof. This is absurd. It is a settled legal position that where literal meaning of a statute or rule leads to an absurdity, the principle of literal interpretation need not be followed and recourse should be taken to the purposive and meaningful interpretation to avoid injustice, absurdity and contradiction so that the intent of the purpose of Legis lature is given effect to. Therefore, a WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters meaningful and practical interpretation has to be given to the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 and same should be interpreted as follows: „the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years in which the subject was taught during the Graduation course."

11. We also find that the Division Bench has considered the

teaching ability of a person who has studied the concerned language at

the graduate as well as at the post-graduate level in the following

terms :

"50. In view of aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, we hold that respondent Neelam Rana is eligible for being appointed to the post of T.G.T.(English), particularly when the Directorate of Education has placed no material before us to show that the person who has studied English at graduate level would be better equipped to teach English to students vis -à-vis a person who has obtained a Post G graduate degree in English language."

However, on 9th April, 2015, the attention of this court was

drawn only to paras 30 and 32 of Sachin Gupta and not to the above

findings.

12. In the case in hand, the petitioner has acquired a post-graduate

degree in the Sanskrit language and has to be considered better to

teach Sanskrit vis-a-vis a person who has studied the same under

graduate degree course.

13. In view of the above, the fact that the petitioner had undertaken

study of Sanskrit language for all parts in the B.A. additional course,

was a relevant factor for consideration of his eligibility, as mentioned

in the recruitment rules. The acquisition of the post-graduate degree

in Sanskrit renders the petitioner even better qualified to teach in the

position than a person with a mere graduate degree.

14. Our attention is also drawn to the notification issued by the

Government of NCT of Delhi dated 17th January, 1994 regarding the

method of recruitment and qualifications necessary for appointment to

the post of TGT (Sanskrit) in the Directorate of Education of the

Government. Amongst the amendments notified by the concerned

government, so far as the qualifications required for direct recruitment

are concerned, the respondents have notified the following eligibility

qualifications :

"(For appointment as Hindi Teachers only) Sahitya Rattan of Hindi Sahitya Sammellan Prayag having secured atleast 45 per cent marks in aggregate with English in Matriculation provided further that the requirement as to the minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate shall be relaxable in the case of

(a) candidate who possesses a Post Graduate Qualification in MIL concerned from a recognised University (b) candidates belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically handicapped candidates."

(Emphasis by us)

15. As a result, for a candidate possessing a post-graduate

qualification in MIL (Modern Indian Language), a minimum

requirement of 45% marks in aggregate at the graduate level is

relaxable.

16. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the

said notification was also not brought to the notice of the Bench when

it passed the order dated 9th April, 2015 resulting in the dismissal of

the petitioner‟s claim.

17. In view of the above discussion, we find that the relevant law

on the subject as well as binding notification of the Government of

NCT of Delhi was not placed before the Division Bench of this court,

resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record.

18. The prayer made in the review petition is justified and admitted

by the respondent. The findings of the Division Bench of this court in

para 10 of the judgment dated 9th April, 2015 are hereby recalled. It is

held that the petitioner fulfilled the basic eligibility criteria laid down