Delhi High Court
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti vs Nidhi Rani And Ors on 7 January, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 60/2025 and CAV 10/2025, CM APPLs. 177/2025 &
178/2025
NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Poddar,
Advocate
versus
NIDHI RANI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr.
Avinash, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 07.01.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Respondents 1 to 10 in the present writ petition were the
applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA
683/20232.
2. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti3 issued, on June-July 2022, an
advertisement, inviting applications for various posts. The respondents
applied for the post of Teacher in Art4. The essential and desirable
1 "the Tribunal" hereinafter
2 Nidhi Rani v Department of School Education & Literacy & others
3 "NVS" hereinafter
4 "Art Teacher" hereinafter
qualifications for the post of Art Teacher, as per the advertisement,
were as under:
Essential Qualifications
"Four years Recognized Diploma in any discipline of Fine Arts as
Drawing/Painting/Sculpture/Graphic Arts/Crafts after passing
Senior Secondary Examination (Class XII or equivalent)
OR
Five years Recognized Diploma in any discipline of Fine Arts as
Drawing/Painting/Sculpture/Graphic Arts/Crafts after passing
Secondary Examination (Class X or equivalent)
OR
Degree in Fine Arts/Crafts from a recognized University
OR
B. Ed. Degree in Fine Arts from Regional College of Education.
Desirable Qualifications
"(i) B. Ed. Degree
(ii) Working knowledge of English and Hindi or other
Regional Language.
(iii) Experience of Working in a residential School.
(iv) Working knowledge of Computers."
3. Despite successfully clearing the written test, the respondents
were not allowed to participate in the interview for the post of Art
Teacher, on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed
Essential Qualifications. The educational qualifications of the
respondents were as under:
Respon- Name Bachelors' Masters'
dent No Degree Degree
1 Nidhi Rani Bachelor of Arts Master of
Fine Arts
2 Reeta Sharma Bachelor of Arts MA
(Drawing
& Painting)
3 Rashmi Gangwar Bachelor of Arts B. Ed.
MA
(Drawing
& Painting)
4 Vishal Jangid Bachelor of Arts Master of
Arts
5 Kapil Kumar Bachelor of Master of
Kasana Science (Textile Arts (Fine
Design) Arts)
6 Savan Bachelor of Arts Master of
Arts
(Visual
Arts)
7 Shreya Malviya Bachelor of Arts MA
(Drawing
& Painting)
NEET
Degree
8 Pratibha Bachelor of Arts Master of
Arts (Fine
Arts)
B. Ed.
9 Durgesh Kumari Bachelor of Arts MA
(Drawing
& Painting)
B. Ed.
10 Anu Rai Bachelor of Arts MA
(Drawing
& Painting)
B. Ed.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Tribunal.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal by way of
response to the OA, the petitioner alleged that the respondents did not
possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as Art Teacher.
6. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgement dated 6 August 2024,
has framed the issue arising for consideration as "whether Bachelors'
Degree in Arts can be equated to that of "Degree in Fine Arts/Crafts"
for the post of teacher in Art", and also mooted the issue of the
consequence of the respondents "having higher qualification of
'Master's Degree in Art".
7. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is, unfortunately, bereft
of any modicum of independent reasoning. Having thus framed the
issue arising for consideration in para 14 of its judgement, the
Tribunal proceeds to reproduce paras 26 and 34 of the report in Anand
Yadav v State of U.P.5 and para 37 of the report in Puneet Sharma v
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd6 in paras 15 and 16
and conclude thus, in para 17:
"17. In view of above analysis and discussions, we dispose of
this OA with directions to the respondents to process the
candidature of all applicants, including the degree holders who
participated and were shortlisted for interview and depending on
the relative merits, after holding interviews, proceed to issue the
final selection list of all successful candidates. The interim
order(s) is made absolute till final results of interview are declared
and finalized. The above exercise be completed within period of
three months from the date of this order. All pending applications,
if any, are also disposed of."
5 (2021) 12 SCC 390
6 AIR 2021 SC 2221
8. We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Poddar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Venkatraman, learned counsel for the
respondents at length.
9. In our considered view, the Tribunal did not properly identify
the issue arising before it for consideration. Nor, consequently, can
the impugned judgement sustain on the anvil of the judgements in
Anand Yadav and Puneet Sharma on which the Tribunal relies.
Nonetheless the final conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal would
sustain, albeit for different reasons.
10. The Essential Qualifications were, in the alternative,
(i) 4/5 year Diploma in any discipline of Fine Arts, as
Drawing/Painting/Sculpture/Graphics Arts/Crafts which none
of the respondents possessed, or
(ii) B. Ed. Degree in Fine Arts from the Regional College of
Education which, too, none of the respondents possessed, or
(iii) Degree in Fine Arts/Crafts from a recognized University.
11. Qualification (iii), as contained in the advertisement, did not
stipulate whether the Degree was to be a Bachelor's Degree or a
Master's Degree. Either would, therefore, clearly suffice.
12. Further, the advertisement also clarified that Drawing, Painting,
Sculpture, Graphic Arts and Crafts were all "Fine Arts".
13. A Degree, whether Bachelor's or Master's, in any one of these
fields would, therefore, qualify as a "Degree in Fine Arts".
14. There is no dispute that the Universities from where the
respondents obtained their Degrees were recognized.
15. Mr. Venkataraman has pointed out that all the respondents,
except Vishal Jangid and Savan, possess Master's Degrees either
expressly in Fine Arts or in Drawing and Painting.
16. Inasmuch as all the candidates, except Vishal Jangid and Savan,
either possess Master's Degrees in Fine Arts or in Drawing and
Painting, which are also Fine Arts as per the advertisement, said
candidates are clearly eligible for selection as Arts Teachers.
17. Vishal Jangid and Savan cannot be regarded as eligible, as they
do not possess any Degree expressly in Fine Arts or in any of the
Disciplines of Fine Arts identified in Condition (i) in the
advertisement (dealing with Diplomas).
18. As such, save and except, for Vishal Jangid and Savan, we are
of the opinion that all the respondents were entitled to the relief
granted by the Tribunal.
19. Resultantly, we uphold the decision of the Tribunal in respect of
all the aspects before it except for Vishal Jangid and Savan.
20. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
JANUARY 7, 2025/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
