Delhi High Court
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And ... vs Sunita Kumari And Anr. on 15 January, 2019
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 15.01.2019
+ W.P.(C) 318/2019 & CM APPL. 1519-1520/2019
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through Dr. B. K. Sinha, Advocate.
versus
SUNITA KUMARI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner - Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan (KVS), has preferred
the present writ petition to assail the order dated 15.11.2017 passed in OA
no. 3387/2017, whereby, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
allowed the said OA preferred by the respondents.
2. The respondents were serving Primary School Teachers (PRT) in
KVS. The petitioner issued a circular dated 15.07.2014 for filling up of
teaching and non-teaching posts through Limited Departmental Examination
(LDE) for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. 99 posts of TGT (Maths) for the
year 2012-13 and 126 for the year 2013-14 were advertised. The
respondents participated in the said LDE for the post of TGT (maths).
However, their candidature was rejected after the examination was
conducted on the premise that they had not studied Mathematics in all the
three years of Graduation, with any of the two other subjects i.e. Physics,
Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science and Statistics. For this purpose,
the petitioner placed reliance on the notification dated 11.12.2014, whereby,
the posts were advertised to be filled up through LDE.
3. The Tribunal has held in favour of the respondents on the premise
that the Recruitment Rules for the posts of TGT (Maths) did not prescribe
the said requirement of having studied Mathematics in all three years of
Graduation as an essential qualification.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
Tribunal has erred in placing reliance upon the decision in Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & Ors. vs. Sachin Gupta¸ WP(C) 1520/2012. Paragraph 48 of the said
decision has been relied upon by the Tribunal and the same reads as follows:
"48. This issue is no longer res integra and stands decided by a
decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2002
(61) DRJ 58 Manju Pal v Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi. In said case, the appellant who had studied
Hindi at Graduate level applied for being appointed to the post
of Primary Assistant Teacher in the MCD. Despite being
successful in the selection process conducted for said purpose,
the appellant was not appointed to the post of Assistant
Primary Teacher on the ground that she had not studied Hindi
at the Higher Secondary Level and is thus not eligible for being
appointed to said post. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the
appellant had filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of this
Court which got dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant
filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this
Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the
appellant and held that the appellant is eligible for being
appointed to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in MCD as
she possessed a higher qualification than the qualification
required for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant
Teacher. It would be relevant to note following portion of the
said judgment:-
"8. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant argued that the appellant was wrongly
rejected on the spurious ground of her nt having a
qualification prescribed by the advertisement read
with the corrigendum. Learned counsel appearing
for the Board and the MCD submit that as per the
qualification prescribed in the advertisement and
the corrigendum for appointment to the post of
Primary Assistant Teacher, the requirement of
Hindi at the Secondary level or Senior Secondary
level is the essential qualification which a
candidate must possess. According to them, in case
a candidate having a Bachelor of Arts degree with
Hindi, he/she would not be eligible for the post of
Primary Assistant Teacher. We fail to see the logic
and the rationale of the argument of the learned
counsel for the MCD and the Board. Undoubtedly,
Bachelor of Arts degree with Hindi, is a higher
qualification than the higher secondary with
Hindi.
10. ............. It cannot be assumed by any stretch
of imagination that a candidate possessing higher
qualification like B.A. with Hindi or M.A. with
Hindi will be less efficient in teaching primary
classes than a person possessing lesser
qualification such as higher secondary with
Hindi."
5. The petitioner submits that the said decision was rendered in the
context of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and KVS is an independent entity.
Learned counsel also submits that the "Important Instructions" issued in the
advertisement-notification dated 11.12.2014, which described that the
candidate should have studied Mathematics in all three years in Graduation
with any of the other subjects i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer
Science and Statistics, is a mandatory condition, which a candidate should
fulfil.
6. We have perused the impugned order, Recruitment Rules and also
considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. So far as the decision in Sachin Gupta (supra) is concerned, it
concerns a candidate, who possessed a higher qualification. The said
decision was therefore not attracted in the facts of the present case.
However, even if the said decision is ignored, we do not find any merit in
the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner premised upon
"Important Instructions" contained in the notification dated 11.12.2014.
8. The Recruitment Rules for the post of TGT are placed on record at
page 140. For the purpose of TGT (Maths), essential qualification
prescribed is as follows :
"Bachelor Degree in Maths with any two of the following
subjects : Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science,
Statistics."
This clearly shows that there is no prescription in the Recruitment
Rules that the candidate should have studied Mathematics in each of the
three years of the Graduation course. This prescription has been introduced
only when the posts were advertised vide notification dated 11.12.2014. In
our view, it was not open to the petitioner to prescribe a qualification, over
and above, what is prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and, by adopting
such a process, to oust the candidates who are otherwise qualified to be
appointed as TGT (Maths) under the Recruitment Rules. We, therefore, find
no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 15, 2019
rc
