Delhi High Court
Subhashree Dash vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 February, 2021
$~Suppl.-18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15th February, 2021
+ W.P. (C) 1986/2021
SUBHASHREE DASH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Uma Devi, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. N.K. Srivastava, Sr. Panel
Counsel for R-1/UOI.
Ms. Rashmi Bansal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rajat Bhatia & Ms. Nidhi
Sahay, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Akshay Chandra & Mr. Ravjyot
Singh, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
ASHA MENON, J (Oral):
CM APPL. 5793/2021
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) 1986/2021, CM APPL. 5792/2021
3. The present petition has been filed by a candidate in the recruitment
for teachers by respondent No.2/Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS)
pursuant to the notification/advertisement dated 14.08.2018 issued by them.
She is aggrieved by the dismissal of her O.A. by the Central Administrative
Tribunal ('Tribunal' in short) vide its order dated 03.09.2020.
4. The petitioner having applied for the post of TGT (Mathematics) in
pursuance of the aforesaid notification of respondent No.2/KVS, wrote the
II-Tier exam and secured the 83rd position under the General Category.
However when she appeared for the interview scheduled for 14.02.2019, the
officials of respondent No.2/KVS did not allow her to proceed her to attend
the interview on the ground that she did not meet the essential eligibility
criteria as per the advertisement.
5. Aggrieved, she filed the O.A. 685/2019 before the Tribunal seeking
direction to respondent No.2/KVS to consider her for appointment on the
basis of the rank secured by her. The Tribunal vide the impugned order
dated 03.09.2020 considered the qualifications as advertised and concluded
as under :
"8. A perusal of the same discloses that the amount of clarity,
which the respondents had, as regards the post. They did not
leave any scope for either for interpretation or for equivalence.
What is mentioned in the advertisement is a full fledged study
for three years in Mathematics, along with two other subjects
mainly in Physical Sciences. Admittedly the applicant did not
study that course. She did B.Tech. It is not even demonstrated
that the curriculum of the B.Tech comprises of three years
regular study in Mathematics and in two of the five subjects
mentioned in the advertisement. The occasional study of the
Mathematics in one or two semesters that too, in the limited
context of an Engineering Degree, can, by no stretch of
imagination, be treated as a Bachelor Degree in Mathematics,
nor it can lead to Bachelor Degree in Mathematics".
6. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Uma Devi has primarily
contended that respondent No.2/ KVS had accepted her application form
when she had filled in her educational qualification under the head of 'others'
and having so accepted her application, had permitted her to write the II-Tier
exam. Therefore, the respondent No.2/KVS could not now debar her from
appearing in the interview and being considered for selection.
8. It is her further contention that the National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) had itself relaxed the norms for admission to the B.Ed.
course in the year 2015 permitting B.Tech graduates to pursue two years
B.Ed. course. The learned counsel contended that once the NCTE had
allowed the B.Tech graduates to obtain B.Ed. degree, respondent No.2/KVS
had no discretion left in the matter and had to consider B.Tech graduates
also for the TGT (Mathematics) post. She further argued that the
Engineering graduates underwent the same curriculum in the B.Ed. course
for Mathematics and Physical Science. Since respondent No.2/KVS had
prescribed passing of the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) Paper-II
in Mathematics and Science as necessary to apply for the TGT
(Mathematics) posts in respondent No.2/KVS and the petitioner having
acquired such eligibility, respondent No.2/KVS could not exclude her from
consideration for the recruitment to the post of TGT (Mathematics).
9. It is on the basis of these arguments that the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had misdirected itself. She has
submitted that the same be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to appear
for the interview.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any binding
rule to the effect that the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE to gain entry
into the B.Ed. Course had to be adopted by all
organisations/institutions/governments for post B.Ed. recruitment. The
argument of the learned counsel was only that as several State Governments
had accepted B.Tech with B.Ed. as sufficient qualification to teach
Mathematics in schools, the insistence of respondent No.2/KVS for a degree
in B.Sc. (Mathematics) and study of Mathematics in each year was
unreasonable.
11. The issue before us appears to be one of standards of education in
KVS schools. Where the object is to set higher standards for eligibility, there
can never be a cause for concern, leave alone interference by Courts. But
even if standards were being lowered, the Courts would still be reluctant to
interfere , since what standards a particular organisation or institution wishes
to prescribe for itself would be in its discretion. Usually, challenges are
made by prospective candidates to eligibility criteria prescribed for entry
into the portals of higher education. But even in such cases, the Courts have
always been shy of substituting their views on such eligibility criteria, for
fear of diluting the standards of academic excellence prescribed by the
academics who are experts in the field.
12. No doubt, the present matter is one where the standards have been
prescribed for its teachers by the respondent No.2/ KVS. The respondent
No.2/KVS is an expert body prescribing and maintaining the standards of
education in the KVS schools across the country. They are well within their
rights to attract the best and so lay down higher eligibility criteria, as
compared to other schools, for selection as Teachers in their schools. That is
why they spelt out their requirements very clearly leaving no scope for
interpretation, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. This desire for recruiting
the best cannot be viewed as a fault, rather it must be commended. The
respondent No.2/KVS is only seeking to ensure that their teachers have in-
depth knowledge in the subject to be able to impart a good understanding
and knowledge of Mathematics to the students who attend the Kendriya
Vidyalayas.
13. In the advertisement, it has been clearly provided as follows :
"C. For the post of TGT (Maths) :
1. The candidate should have studied Maths in all the years
of graducation with any two subjects out of Physics,
Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science, Statistics.
2. In case of Honours Degree in Maths, the candidate
should have studied Maths in all the years of graudation
with atleast 50% marks in aggregate and any of the two
subjects indicated in point No.1 above with atleast 50%
marks in each subject at graduation, level and also
atleast 50% marks in graduation.
3. BA (Hons.) in Maths and B.Sc. (Hons.) in any subject
other than Maths are not eligible for the post of TGT
(Maths)."
14. It may be noticed that even the B.A. Hons.(Maths) has not been found
to be a sufficient qualification to be eligible for the post of TGT (Maths). To
take it to the next level of B.Tech, then, is not possible. What is essential for
the post is that the candidates should have studied Mathematics in all the
years of graduation and to have obtained at least 50% marks in the aggregate
along with two other science subjects as specified. The passing of the CTET
and the B.Ed. degree with proficiency of teaching in Hindi and English
medium are no doubt essential qualifications, but the "Important Instructions
to the Candidates for the post of TGT" clearly specifies that for those who
are applying for the post of TGT (Mathematics) it was necessary that they
should have studied Mathematics in all the years of their graduation.
15. It is not the case of the petitioner that she had studied Mathematics for
three years during graduation and it is not so pleaded. Her case is that NCTE
allowed B.Tech graduates to join the B.Ed. course by relaxing the eligibility
conditions. That may be so. The NCTE can only modify and change, relax
or make stringent, the eligibility qualifications to apply for the course of
B.Ed. Those are their norms and standards. They have not prescribed a
universal standard for employment of teachers, as they are concerned with a
stage prior to employment, namely, the acquisition of the educational
qualifications for teaching. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the
application of those eligibility criteria to the present recruitment process by
the respondent No.2/KVS.
16. As to the contention that since respondent No.2/KVS had allowed her
to sit for the exam despite her having applied under the head of "others", the
principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted in such matters. Moreover,
documents are usually checked at the time of interview to verify whether the
applicant has correctly disclosed all facts in the application and has also got
the required qualifications for appointment. The petitioner was found
wanting in the qualification required, which she seems to have willfully
sought to camouflage by putting her educational qualifications under the
head of "others". Qualifications placed under "others" cannot be so disparate
and far removed from the express educational requirements duly notified in
the advertisement.
17. As we are ourselves loathe to tinker with eligibility criteria that would
adversely affect the standard of education imparted in schools of the
respondent No.2/KVS, we are unable to find any error in the decision of the
Tribunal. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed along
with the pending application.
ASHA MENON, J
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2021
ck
