Delhi High Court
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Amlesh Kumar on 22 March, 2016
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9822/2015, CM APPL. 23685/2015
Date of decision: 22nd March, 2016
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. U.N. Singh, Adv.
Versus
AMLESH KUMAR
..... Respondent
Through: Shree Prakash Sinha
with Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan by this writ petition impugns
the final order and judgment dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Principal
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing O.A. No. 2418
of 2014 holding that Amlesh Kumar, the respondent herein, meets the
minimum eligibility qualification, and he should be called for
interview for final selection to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher
(TGT), (Social Science) by constituting the same or another Board.
2. The primary contention and issue raised before the Tribunal
and before this Court is whether the respondent fulfils the essential
qualification for appointment as TGT (Social Science) as notified in
the Advertisement No.7 for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14.
3. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads:
" 1. EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER QUALIFICATION FOR THE
POST CODE 41 TO 46
Essential:
i) Four years' integrated degree course of Regional
Colleges of Educational of NCERT in the concerned
subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate.
OR
Bachelor's Degree with at least 50% marks in the
concerned subjects/combination of subjects and in
aggregate. The elective subjects and Languages in the
combination of subjects are as under:
Post Post (Subject) Subject(s)
Code
41 TGT (English) English as a subject in all the
three years
42 TGT (Hindi) Hindi as a subject in all the
three years
43 TGT (S.St.) Any two of the following:
History, Geography,
Economics and Pol. Science of
which one must be either
History or Geography
44 TGT (Science) Botany, Zoology and
Chemistry
45 TGT (Sanskrit) Sanskrit as a subject in all the
three years
46 TGT (Maths) Bachelor Degree in Maths
with any two of the following
subjects:
Physics, Chemistry,
Electronics, Computer
Science, Statistics
ii) Pass in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET),
conducted by CBSE in accordance with the Guidelines
framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
iii) Proficiency in teaching in Hidi and English medium.
Desirable: Knowledge of Computer Applications."
4. The respondent, it is accepted, is a Bachelor of Arts (3 Year
Honours Course) from the Banaras Hindu University. He has studied
English as a compulsory language subject, taught in the first and
second year. He had opted for History as an Optional Subject, and had
studied and cleared two papers - Paper I and Paper II in the first year,
with 61% and 62% marks, respectively. In the second year, he had
again studies and cleared two papers in History, i.e.- Paper III and
Paper IV with 61% and 57% marks, respectively. The respondent had
taken Political Science and Sociology as the second and third
Optional subject and had studied and cleared the said subjects. In the
third year, the respondent had taken the following subjects and
cleared them:
"Paper V - Indian Government and Politics
Paper VI - Political Sociology
Paper VII - Principles of Public Administration (Suitable
Illustrations from India, U.K. & U.S.A.)
Paper VIII - International Relations:
Concept & Issues.
Paper XI - Indian Government and Politics of Nepal,
Pakistan and Malaysia
Paper X - Foreign Policy of India."
5. The respondent has secured 1035 marks out of 1800 marks
cumulatively in the three years. Marks in English, the optional papers
and papers V to X mentioned in paragraph 4 above were counted.
6. The respondent thereafter enrolled and in 2007 was awarded
the Degree of Bachelor of Education by the Department of Education,
University of Delhi with (a) History (A level) and (b) Political
Science (A level) as the teaching subjects.
7. As per the eligibility qualifications mentioned in the
advertisement, a candidate should have studied two subjects out of the
following : History, Geography, Economics and Political Science, out
of which, History or Geography was mandatory. Thus, emphasis was
on inter-disciplinary study, but with the pre-condition that the
candidate must have studied either History or Geography in addition
to other specified subjects. The advertisement under the heading
„Essential‟ further adumbrates that the candidate should possess a
Bachelor‟s Degree with at least 50% marks in the concerned
subjects/combination of subjects and in aggregate.
8. The question raised pertains to the meaning of the term
"elective subject" in the advertisement. In specific honours course at
the graduation level, emphasis is on one subject, which can be
History, Political Science, Geography, etc. but in a general course
leading to a degree in a Bachelor of Arts, emphasis is on several
subjects during the tenure of the course. Pertinently, universities
enjoy a substantial degree of flexibility and autonomy in designing
the course content, the method/manner of teaching "elective" subjects
and in the conduct of examinations. Nomenclature used by the
universities to describe "elective subjects" are also divergent and not
codified.
9. In the present case, the respondent had studied History (Paper-I
& Paper-II) in the first year and Paper-III and Paper-IV in the second
year. History was one of the the optional subject selected and studied
by the respondent as per the course structure developed by the
Banaras Hindu University, a recognised university offering such
course. In addition, the respondent had studied Political Science as
another elective subject at the graduation level in the first and the
second years.
10. The petitioner however objects and per contra submits that the
respondent had studied History for two years and has not studied this
subject in the third year and was therefore not eligible.
11. A similar issue had earlier arisen and was decided in
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs. Sachin Gupta and Ors.
WP(C) 1520 of 2013 and other connected matters. The Government
of NCT of Delhi had disqualified several candidates on an identical
plea that the candiates had not studied the "elective subject" in each
of the three years. The Recruitment Rules had postulated a Bachelor‟s
Degree in either Honours or Pass or an equivalent course from a
recognised university in two school subjects, of which at least one of
them - English, Mathematics, Natural/Physical Science or Social
Science - should have been at the elective level. Social Sciences were
classified as (i) History, (ii) Political Science, (iii) Economics, (iv)
Business Studies (v) Sociology, (vi) Geography and (vii) Psychology
and the term „Natural Science‟ was notified as Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, Botany and Zoology.
12. Dealing with the issue as to what is meant by the term „Elective
Subject‟, the Division Bench had referred to different terms used by
universities and held:
"31. The necessity to issue the corrigendum was to
give clarity as to what was meant by `elective subject‟;
for the reason there was no unanimity of opinion as to
what would be an elective subject since different
universities in India follow different procedures and
methodologies of imparting education.
32. The study of various disciplines of education i.e.
subjects taught is broadly classified into three
categories i.e. (i) core subject (ii) elective subjects and
(iii) mandatory subjects. The difference in the three is
as under:
(a) Core Subjects: The student shall
complete successfully all the core subjects
prescribed for the program to become
eligible for the award of Degree. Such
courses together with their grades and
credits earned should be included in the
Grade Card issued by the College at the
end of each semester.
(b) Elective Subjects: The student shall
further complete successfully the total
credit equivalent subjects offered in the
program to become eligible for the award
of the Degree. The student can choose the
subject of his/her interest from among the
available credits.
(c) Mandatory Subjects: The student shall
complete successfully all the mandatory
courses prescribe from time to time by the
college. These subjects however do not
carry any credits.
(33) Aforesaid is the classification which can been
found across the board for all universities in India. We
may clarify that in some universities mandatory
subjects are referred to as subsidiary subjects. The
difference in the three is that the marks awarded for the
core and elective subjects are reckoned for the
purposes of the grade awarded but not for mandatory
or subsidiary subjects."
13. The aforesaid ratio elucidates that the terms, "Elective" and
"Core" subjects refers to subjects which are counted for the purpose
of award of certificate and must be cleared by the student. The marks
obtained and grade earned in these subjects are included in the grade
card issued by the college/university at the end of each semester/year.
14. In Sachin Gupta (supra), the Division Bench had also
examined whether it was necessary and required that the "elective"
subject should have been taught in all the three years or it would
suffice if the course contents were taught in two out of three three
years as per the course structure developed and followed by the
university concerned. It was held:
"40. To repeat, corrigendum dated March 30,
2010 prescribes that the expression „elective subject‟
occurring in the Recruitment Rules means that „The
candidate should have studied the subject concerned as
mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation.
The elective word may also include main subject as
practiced in different universities‟. It is clear that the
ethos of the prescription contained in the corrigendum
dated March 30, 2010 that „the candidate should have
studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in
all parts/years of graduation‟ is that the candidate
should have a deep understanding of the subject in
which he is desirous of imparting education to the
children.
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
Legislature is given effect to. Therefore, a 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‟
42. It has also to be kept in mind that whereas the
University of Delhi was teaching the concerned subject
and was testing the knowledge of the students each year
by assigning 100 marks to the paper i.e. three papers
were being taught in the three years, as a result of
restructuring, the number of papers continued to be
three with marks assigned to each paper, being 100,
except that now the three papers are taught in only two
years. In other words the previous and the current
position continues to be practically the same. It hardly
matters whether three papers of 100 marks each are
taught over three years or three papers of 100 marks
each are taught in two years. A ready illustration could
be a rational decision taken that unless a student studies
History up to a particular level he may not understand
the nuances of Political Science and hence a University
may decide that the subject of Political Science should
be taught after a foundation course in History is taught
and this would mean that the subject of Political Science
is introduced in the second year of study and continued
in the third. The previous position of teaching Political
Science in each year with one paper each year having
100 marks is replaced by teaching Political Science only
in the second and the third year but retaining the three
papers each having 100 marks."
15. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs and the ratio expounded,
elucidates that different universities follow different practices as to
the nomenclature, the methods and years in which "elective" subjects
are taught. There is no uniformity. What is important and relevant is
whether the student was taught the said subject while he was studying
in the university and the marks obtained in the said subjects were
counted for the purpose of grades/marksheet. It is open to the
university to teach the subject in all the three years or in two out of
three years. This is not significant or would not matter. What matters
is that the candidate should have studied the concerned subject during
graduation and developed good understanding thereof.
16. In the absence of precise precise definition of the term "elective
subject" in the Rules, in Sachin Gupta (supra), the Court observed
that literal interpretation, i.e, "elective" subject is one which is taught
in all three years, would be counterproductive and would lead to
injustice and absurdity. In the circumstances, the requirement was that
the term has to be read purposely and meaningfully. In the present
case also, the advertisement did not define the term "elective subject".
This expression has to given a purposive and meaningful
interpretation. This exercise was not undertaken by the petitioner,
who have therefore faulted. This had resulted in the decision making
error.
17. In view of the above reasoning, we do not find any merit in the
present case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
18. The petitioner will expeditiously complete exercise as directed
by the Tribunal, within two months from the date a copy of this order
is received in the petitioner‟s office.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MARCH 22, 2016/acm
