Delhi High Court
Neelam vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 11 January, 2016
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C).189/2016
% Judgment dated 11th January, 2016
NEELAM ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashok Agarwal with Mr. Anuj
Agarwal, Advocates
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Ms. Niti Jain,
Advocates for respondents no.1 and 2.
Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for respondent
no.4/UOI.
Mr. Amit Bansal with Ms. Seema Dolo &
Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Advocates for
respondent no.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to for short as „the
Tribunal‟) by which the Tribunal while setting aside Clause 4 of the
Guidelines dated 08.11.2010 declined to allow other reliefs as sought by
the petitioner in the OA filed before the Tribunal.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed are that the respondents had issued an
Advertisement no.01/13(Post Code 01/13) for the post of Special Education
Teacher under Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. In
response to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post
of Special Education Teacher under the Directorate of Education. It is the
case of the petitioner that at the time of submission of the form, though her
result for the previous Central Teacher Eligibility Test(CTET) examination
was awaited, but being of the view that the petitioner would be able to clear
the same, she marked herself as „CTET-qualified‟ in the form. However,
on receiving her CTET result later on, she came to know that she had not
been able to clear the CTET Exam and missed the qualifying mark by a
few points.
3. The petitioner was issued an admit card for the exam for the Post Code
01/13 and she appeared in the exam held on 28.04.2013. It is the case of
the petitioner that as the petitioner apprehended that her candidature will be
rejected inasmuch as she was not CTET qualified at that point of time, she
made a representation to the respondents no.1, 3 and 4 requesting them that
the petitioner may be granted two year‟s time for acquiring CTET
qualification and, in the meanwhile, she may be considered for recruitment
to the post of Special Education Teacher in terms of the advertisement
no.01/13. However, no response to the aforesaid representation was
received by the petitioner.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
seeking the following prayers:
"(i) Issue an appropriate order or direction thereby quashing the
clause 4 of the impugned guidelines dated 08.01.2010 of the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, respondent
no.4, whereby the said respondent no.4 in clause 4 thereof
has provided that the conditions of passing TET shall not be
relaxed by the Central Government, being arbitrary,
discriminatory, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art.
14,15,16,21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and
contrary to the provisions of RTE Act, 2009 against Public
Interest and opposed to public policy.
(ii) Issue an appropriate order or direction thereby directing the
respondents no.1 and 2 to take up the matter with the
Central Government for grant of relaxation in the matter of
CTET qualification to the applicant for a period of 2 years
in terms of Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, 2009.
(iii) Issue an appropriate order or direction thereby directing the
respondent no.4/Central Government to consider the case of
the applicant for grant of relaxation in the qualification of
CTET upto March 31,2015.
(iv) Issue an appropriate order or direction thereby directing the
respondent no.3/DSSSB not to reject the candidature of the
applicant on the ground of non-qualification of CTET until
the disposal of the applicant‟s representation by the
respondents."
5. The Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the petitioners and quashed
Clause 4 of the Guidelines dated 08.11.2010. While disposing of the OA,
the following directions have been issued:
"In view of the aforementioned, we set aside Clause 4 of the
impugned guidelines issued vide No.1-15/2010-EE-4 dated
08.11.2010(Annexure A/1). It would be open to the respondents
to take up the matter for exercise of the powers conferred upon
the Central Government under Section 23(2) of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as per
procedure laid down in the aforementioned guidelines. The OA
stands disposed of."
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, at this stage, the petitioner would be
satisfied if a time limit is fixed to enable the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as per procedure laid down in the
Guidelines.
7. Counsel for the respondents enter appearance on an advance copy.
8. We find the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner to be fair and just.
Accordingly, we direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to comply with the order
dated 12.02.2015. We also direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to consider
the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this order in accordance with law. This order is without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
10. CM.APPL 762/2016 also stands disposed of.
11. Dasti to the parties under the signature of Court Master.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 11, 2016
pst
