Paramjit Kaur vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2125 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+             W.P.(C) 4293/2016
                                        Reserved on: 17th February, 2017
%                                  Date of Decision: 1st May, 2017

      PARAMJIT KAUR                                         ..... Petitioner
                         Through      Mr. S. S. Tiwari, Advocate
                         versus
      GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                         Through      Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC
                                      and Mr. Rizwan, Advocate for
                                      GNCTD
                                      Mr. Ravinder, Aggarwal and Mr.
                                      Girish Pande, Advocate for UGC
                                      Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate for
                                      Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for R-4
                                      Mr. Ashok Kumar Pamgrahi,
                                      Advocate for NCERT
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner-Paramjit Kaur has

challenged the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) in the Original Application

(OA) No. 2166/2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are, that pursuant to the Advertisement

No. 02/2010 in July 2010 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services

Selection Board (DSSSB, for short) the petitioner had applied for the post

of Post Graduate Teacher (Biology) (Female), Post Code No. 040/10. The

essential qualifications stipulated for the aforesaid post were as follows:-

"1. Master's Degree (or its equivalent Oriental Degree in the case of PGT Sanskrit/Hindi) in the subject concerned from any recognized University.

2. Degree/Diploma in Training/Education "Qualifications mentioned at S.No. 2 above relaxable in the case of candidates: (i) having obtained Ph. D Degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University/Institution; or (ii) having obtained First Division in Higher Secondary, Degree and Post Graduate Examination with the mandatory condition that the candidate will acquire the B.Ed./B.T. qualification within a period not exceeding three years from the date of his joining the service.

Desirable: 3 years, experience of teaching in a College/Higher Secondary School/High School in the subject concerned."

3. The essential qualification of Degree/Diploma in Training/Education

was relaxable in the case of candidates (i) having obtained Ph.D. Degree in

the subject concerned from a recognised University/Institution or (ii) 1st

Division in Higher Secondary, Degree and Post Graduate Examination with

the mandatory condition that the candidate would acquire the B.Ed./B.T.

qualification within a period not exceeding three years from the date of his

joining the service.

4. The petitioner appeared for the objective type written examination on

08.01.2012, wherein she was successful. She appeared in the descriptive

(main) examination, in which again she was successful. As per the result

declared on 06.08.2012, the petitioner had obtained 141 marks and secured

third rank on the merit list. The petitioner was accordingly vide letter dated

14.12.2012 directed to get her documents verified by the E-II (Respondent

No.3) branch on 27.12.2012.

5. The first candidate in the merit list Ms. Archana Yadav was issued

appointment order dated 18.03.2013 by the respondents. Iqbal Kaur and

Manisha Rajpal, the candidates securing the 4th and 6th rank in the merit list

were also issued appointment order dated 30.04.2013. Subsequently, the

candidature of the petitioner was cancelled vide office order dated

24.09.2013. The reason was that in the meeting held on 22.05.2013 under

the chairpersonship of Dr. (Smt.) Sunita Kaushik, the expert committee had

concluded as under:-

"1. The candidate for the post of PGT (biology) must have M.Sc. degree in Botany or Zoology as they can impart the basic

concept in Biology clearly to teach the students at the Senior Secondary level.

2. As the candidates go higher in any specialised branch (i.e., Bio0Technology, Bio-Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics) other than M.Sc. Botany or Zoology, they will not do justice to the basic subject of Biology upto Senior Secondary level. Further, specialised branches (i.e., Bio-Technology, Bio- Chemistry, Micro-Biology and Genetics) are only the small components of the syllabus or course contents taught to the students at the Senior secondary level.

3. As a PGT (Biology) the candidate with M.Sc. Botany/Zoology are more suitable to teach students the foundation course at the senior secondary level."

The petitioner has a bachelors' degree i.e. B. Sc. (Hons) in Botany

and a M. Sc. in Biotechnology. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared

ineligible as per the decision of the expert committee.

6. The petitioner has submitted that none of the selected candidates had

M.Sc. (Biology) degree due to the fact that no university awards this

degree. Biology is a broad spectrum subject for the study of natural

sciences. The petitioner contends that the schools being affiliated to the

Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE, for short), are bound to

follow their instructions on equivalence of degrees etc. CBSE Bye-law

53(v) in Chapter IX clearly states that M.Sc in Life Science with Zoology

and Botany at graduation level are eligible for PGT (Biology). In the

present case, M.Sc (Biotechnology) is a discipline of Lifescience/biology.

The relevant portion of CBSE bye-law 53 (v) in Chapter IX is as under:-

"Biology (Either 1 or 2) 1 (a) Master;s degree in Botany or zoology with Zoolgoy or Botany.

OR Master‟s Degree in Zoology with Botany at graduate level.

OR M.Sc. in Life Science with Zoology and Botany at graduate level.

AND

(b) Degree in Education or three years teaching experience of Intermediate or higher classes.

2. M.Sc. Ed. In the subject concerned from Regional Institute of Education, NCERT."

Bye law 53(v), has been further clarified vide amendment dated

29.06.2010 to state that Post-graduation in Microbiology, Molecular

Biology, Agricultural Botany, Genetics or other related disciplines would

be treated as par with M.Sc Botany or Zoology provided it is preceded by

graduation in Botany/Zoology. The Tribunal and the respondents have

overlooked these aspects and declared the petitioner as ineligible and

therefore, disqualified to be appointed to the post of Post Graduate Teacher

(Biology) (Female).

7. The issue to be decided is whether petitioner is eligible, in view of

having B.Sc. (H) in Botany and M.Sc. (Biotechnology), for appointment to

the post of PGT (Biology) (Female).

8. The impugned order demonstrates that the Tribunal has refrained

from substituting their opinion for that of experts constituted for the

specific purpose of deciding equivalence of degrees. The aforesaid precept

cannot be doubted and challenged. However, the courts or tribunals have

been given the liberty to examine whether there was any error or mistake in

the decision making process, while examining and deciding the question of

equivalence; whether the Committee or the experts had delved into, and

examined, the question of equivalence at the first instance in its right

prospective, what was the opinion expressed by the experts, and whether

the relevant aspects and parameters had been applied or ignored by relying

upon irrelevant considerations.

9. It would be appropriate to note that during the course of proceedings

before us, the question raised by the petitioner as recorded in the order

dated 16.05.2016, which reads:-

"The Expert committee set up for the purpose came to the conclusion that candidates with M.Sc. Botany/Zoology would be "more suitable". The contention of the petitioner is

that "more suitable" is not the proper test. The test to be applied is that of equivalence. This he submits has resulted in an error in the decision making process."

Difference between "suitability" and "eligibility" is apparent and

does not require any explanation or elucidation. The question of eligibility

has to be examined with reference to the qualifications prescribed.

Suitability, on the other hand, would refer to the assessment and selection

of one who is better in comparison.

10. The National Council of Educational Research and Training

(NCERT) in pursuance of the court order, have filed their counter affidavit.

The petitioner would rely upon this affidavit filed by the NCERT in support

of her stand and stance. The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit of

the NCERT are being reproduced below:-

"3. In this regard, it is submitted that the opinion was sought from the Professor and Head of Department, DESM (Department of Education in Science and Mathematics) whether M.Sc. (Biotechnology) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Botany/Zoology) and the petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of PGT (Biology).

4. The opinion is cited below as:

"A candidate possessing Post-Graduate in Bio- technology and who has studied Botany and Zoology at graduate level and Biology at Higher Secondary level may be considered."

Prior to this, it was also opined by the same Professor that Bio-technology is a specialized area under Biology."

On the question, whether M.Sc. (Biotechnology) is equivalent to

M.Sc. (Botany/Zoology), the opinion expressed states that the candidate

possessing Post-Graduate in Bio-technology and who has studied Botany

and Zoology at the graduate level and Biology at Higher Secondary level

may be considered.

11. The petitioner possesses a B.Sc. (Hons) Degree in Botany and M.Sc.

degree in(Biotechnology) which, as per the opinion of the expert

Committee state above, is equivalent to M.Sc. (Botany) as required in the

advertisement and Recruitment Rules for the post of PGT (Biology).

12. In view of the specific affidavit of the NCERT dated 15.12.2016, we

are of the opinion that the petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications

as required under the advertisement and recruitment rules for the post of

PGT (Biology) and would be eligible for appointment to the said post.

Equivalence is never examined in a vacuum but with reference to the

Recruitment Rules and the work and job requirements on the post.

13. The question of equivalence, in the light of the aforesaid specific

opinion of the NCERT, that the degree of M.Sc. (Biotechnology) with a

degree in B.Sc. (H) in Botany at the graduation level is an equivalent

degree, must be answered in favour of the petitioner.

14. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and opinion, we find that

there is merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly

allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2015 is quashed

and set aside. We direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the

petitioner for appointment as Post Graduate Teacher (Biology) (Female),

Post Code No.040/10. The petitioner, however, would not be entitled to the

arrears of pay and the appointment to the said post would take effect from

the date the petitioner is so appointed. The respondents would complete the

aforesaid exercise within a period of two months from the date of this

judgment. There would be no order as to costs.

(CHANDER SHEKHAR) JUDGE

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE May 01, 2017 b