Delhi High Court
Directorate Of Education vs Manisha Sharma And Anr. on 19 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 19, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10521/2017 & CM 43050/2017
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms.
Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocate
versus
MANISHA SHARMA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 28th July, 2017 (Annexure P-1) sets aside order
of 31st October, 2016 vide which first respondent was removed from
service as she did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as contained in the
Recruitment Rules for the post of TGT (English). It is matter of record
that first respondent was appointed as TGT (English) w.e.f. 8th July, 2008
on the recommendation of Staff Selection Committee and upon
completion of her probation period, as per order of 30th September, 2009,
she was confirmed as TGT (English) from 1st July, 2009. As per
Memorandum of 10th March, 2014, a complaint was received by
petitioner regarding appointment of first respondent being irregular and
as per this Memorandum, first respondent was possessing degree of
B.El.Ed., whereas for the post of TGT, degree of B.Ed. was required as
per Recruitment Rules.
2. It is the case of petitioner that upon receiving the said complaint,
first respondent was placed under suspension and was charge-sheeted and
after an Inquiry, penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon first
respondent.
3. Impugned order takes note of the fact that first respondent had
taught as TGT (English) for almost six years and while relying upon
decision of Division Bench of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v.
Monika Sharma in W.P. (C) 8089/2015 rendered on 26th May, 2016, the
penalty order has been set aside.
4. The challenge to impugned order by learned counsel for petitioner
is on the ground that as per the Affiliation Bye-Laws of Central Board of
Secondary Education, a TGT has to teach Classes VI to X and since
petitioner is holding a degree of bachelors in Elementary Education, so
she is not equipped to teach beyond Class VIII. Attention of this Court is
drawn to the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition
Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as „the
Regulations of 2014‟) to point out that as per these Regulations, a
bachelor of elementary education can teach Classes I to VIII. It is
submitted that there is no classification of TGT teachers so as to bifurcate
teaching of Classes from VI to VIII and that of Classes IX and X. So, it is
submitted that it is very difficult to appoint one set of teachers to teach
Classes VI to VIII and to appoint different set of TGT teachers to teach
Classes IX and X. Reliance is placed upon a decision of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 7167/2016 titled Preeti v. The Director of
Education and Ors. (Annexure P-7) wherein a candidate having degree in
elementary education was not held to be fit to be promoted as TGT as the
stipulation of degree/diploma in training education has to be read in
conformity with the norms and standards issued by National Council for
Teacher Education. Lastly, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has erred
in relying upon decision in Monika Sharma (supra) as in the said case,
Monika Sharma had M.Ed. degree, which is a higher qualification and so,
the case of petitioner cannot be treated at par with that of Monika Sharma.
So, it is submitted that impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for first respondent supports
impugned order and submits that the Recruitment Rules for the post of
Trained Graduate Teacher do not require a candidate to possess B.Ed.
degree. It is pointed out that the only requirement as per the Recruitment
Rules is of possessing degree/diploma in Training Education. It is
submitted that the decision in Preeti (supra) is of no assistance to the case
in hand, as the said case was of promotion and the norms, which have
been relied upon came into force in November, 2014 whereas the case in
hand pertains to the period prior thereto. So, it is submitted that the
Regulations of 2014 cannot be given retrospective effect.
6. Regarding the Bye-Laws of Central Board of Secondary Education,
it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that even as per
these Bye-Laws, a graduate in the subject having recognized
degree/diploma in education is qualified to be appointed as TGT and in
the instant case, petitioner has a degree in Elementary Education and so,
she was duly appointed as TGT. It is also the submission of learned
counsel for first respondent that even in the Advertisement issued in the
year 2017 for the post of TGT, the essential qualification required is
degree/diploma in training education and it is nowhere provided that a
degree in B.Ed. is essential qualification for being appointed as a TGT.
So, it is submitted that impugned order deserves to be upheld and this
petition ought to be dismissed.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, record of this case
and the decisions cited, I find that as per the Recruitment Rules for the
post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), essential qualification is
Bachelor Degree and a Degree/Diploma in Training Education. The
Recruitment Rules nowhere require a degree in B.Ed. as an essential
qualification. It is worthwhile to refer to the relevant extract of the Bye-
Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education, which have been
placed on record by petitioner's counsel. The essential qualifications of
TGT (English), who are to teach Classes VI to X are as under: -
"T.G.Ts (To teach classes VI-X)
English: (Either of the two)
i) a) Graduate in/with the subject;
b) A recognized Degree/Diploma in education
ii) B.A. B.Ed. with English of the Regional College of
Education"
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Monika Sharma (supra) has
categorically observed as under: -
"The essential requirement prescribed in the present
case is degree/diploma in training/education. The requirement
did not specify the nature of degree of diploma. In fact, even
B.Ed. has not been specified for even a person with diploma
was eligible."
9. Reliance placed by petitioner's counsel upon a decision (Annexure
P-7) of a Division Bench of this Court is of no avail for the reason that
the Regulations of 2014 cannot be given a retrospective effect and
because the said case was of promotion whereas the instant case is of
removal after first respondent had served for more than six years.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, learned Delhi School
Tribunal has rightly relied upon the decision of Monika Sharma (supra)
and since the Recruitment Rules in question do not stipulate that B.Ed. is
an essential qualification, therefore, the removal of first respondent from
service has been rightly set aside by learned Tribunal. Thus, finding no
substance, this petition and the application are dismissed while vacating
the interim order and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 19, 2018
s
