Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: July 25, 2013
Judgment Pronounced on: August 07, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 1520/2012
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Mr.N.K.Singh, Advocate
versus
SACHIN GUPTA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate
W.P.(C) 4483/2012
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Mr.N.K.Singh, Advocate
versus
VIKRAM SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Manoj Ohri, Advocate
W.P.(C) 2514/2012
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Mr.N.K.Singh, Advocate
versus
SNEHLATA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate
W.P.(C) 4301/2012
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Mr.N.K.Singh, Advocate
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 1 of 24
versus
NAINIKA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Manoj Ohri, Advocate
W.P.(C) 575/2013
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Mr.N.K.Singh, Advocate
versus
NEELAM RANA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Umesh Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The above captioned five writ petitions have a common backdrop
and hence are being decided together.
2. Pertaining to the educational qualifications; specified as essential,
relevant portion of the Recruitment Rule for the post of Trained Graduate
Teacher (T.G.T.) as originally framed by the Government of NCT of
Delhi on December 11, 1991 reads as under:-
“ANNEXURE-I
Recruitment Rules for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Education
Department, Delhi Administration, Delhi
Name of the post Educational and other qualifications required for
direct recruits
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 2 of 24
1 8
Trained
Graduate
Teachers
1. A bachelor‟s Degree (Pass/Hons) from a
recognized University or equivalent having secured
at least 45% marks in aggregate of having studied to
a level not lower than ancillary/subsidiary subjects
indicated in any of the following groups:-
English 1. English as main subject at graduation level with
one of the following subjects:-
(i) History, (ii) Pol. Science, (iii) Economics, (iv)
Commerce, (v) Geography, (vi) Agriculture, (vii)
Horticulture.
Mathematics ……
Social Science,
and
3. Social Science: At least two of the following main
subjects at graduation level:
(i) History, (ii) Pol. Science, (iii) Economics, (iv)
Commerce, (v) Geography, (vi) Agriculture, (vii)
Horticulture.”
Physical
Science/Natural
Science
……
3. Pertaining to the educational qualification, specified as essential,
relevant portion of the Recruitment Rule for the post of Trained Graduate
Teacher (Modern Indian Languages) as originally framed by the
Government of NCT of Delhi on December 30, 1992 reads as under:-
“SCHEDULE
RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF TRAINED GRADUATE
TEACHER (MIL) UNDER THE DTE. OF EDUCATION, DELHI ADMN.,
DELHI
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 3 of 24
Name of the post Educational and other qualifications required for
direct recruits
1 8
T.G.T. (MIL) (i) B.A. (Honours) in one of the MIL concerned or
B.A. with MIL concerned as one of the elective
subjects from a recognized University having 45%
marks in aggregate with one additional language at
B.A. level.
OR
Equivalent Original Degree in MIL concerned from
a recognized University having 45% marks in
aggregate.”
4. On January 17, 1994 the Government of NCT of Delhi made
following amendments in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher (Modern Indian Language) in Education Department,
Delhi Administration, Delhi:-
“Name of the
post
Educational and other qualifications required for
direct recruits
1 8
T.G.T. (MIL) (i) B.A. (Honours) in one of the Modern Indian
Languages (MIL) concerned or B.A. with MIL
concerned as one of the elective subjects from a
recognized University having 45% marks in
aggregate with one additional language or one
school subject at Degree level.
OR
Equivalent Original Degree in MIL concerned from
a recognized University having 45% marks in
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 4 of 24
aggregate.” (Emphasis Supplied)
5. On February 27, 1997 Government of NCT of Delhi made
following amendments in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher English, Mathematics, Social Science and Physical
Science/Natural Science in Education Department, Delhi Administration,
Delhi requiring column 11 of the existing Recruitment Rule to be
amended as under:-
Educational and other qualifications required for
direct recruits
A Bachelor‟s degree (Honours/Pass) or equivalent
from a recognized University having secured 45%
marks in aggregate, in two school subjects of which
at least one out of following should have been at
elective level:-
1. English
2. Mathematics
3. Natural/Physical Science
4. Social Science
Note: Main subjects for T.G.T. (Natural
Science/Phy. Science) shall be Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, Botany and Zoology.
Social Science: - History/Political
Science/Economics/Business
Studies/Sociology/Geography/Psychology.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 5 of 24
6. A corrigendum was issued on March 13, 2000 defining what is
meant by the expression ‘ elective subject ’ occurring in the afore-noted
Recruitment Rule(s), which reads as under:-
“In partial modification of this office order no.2 dated 1.7.99
issued vide endorsement no.F.DE.3 (2)(2)/E-III/9915505-519
dated 01.07.99 the N.B. column after endorsement S. No.1 on
page 50 of the said order be read as under:-
N.B: As per policy the definition of elective in RR‟s has been
framed as the candidate should have studied the subject
concerned as mentioned in the RR‟s of at least 100 marks each
in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also
include main subject as practiced in different universities.
The above definition of elective subject shall apply to all orders
of promotion and Direct Recruitment issued by this office from
time to time.”
7. Another corrigendum was issued on March 30, 2010 defining
‘ elective subject ’ in supersession of earlier corrigendum dated March 13,
2000 and same reads as under:-
“In supersession to this office corrigendum no.F.DE.3(44)/E-
III/99/2209 dated 14/03/2000, the term „Elective‟ as specified
in the Recruitment Rules may be read as under:
“The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as
mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The
elective word may also include main subject as practiced in
different universities.”
The above definition of elective subject shall apply to all orders
of promotion and Direct Recruitment issued by this office from
time to time.
This issues with the prior approval of the Competent
Authority.”
8. In the year 1996 the respondent of W.P. (C) No.1520/2012; Sachin
Gupta, obtained a B.Com (Hons.) degree from Delhi University.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 6 of 24
9. It is an undisputed fact that in the year 1994 the subject of
nd rd
Economics was taught in only the 2 and the 3 year of the three years
Bachelors degree i.e. not in all the three years of the course; students
opting for B.Com (Hons.) course had to clear a total of three papers in
nd
Economics in the examinations conducted by the University in the 2 and
rd
3 year of the course and each paper was of 100 marks. Needless to state,
nd rd
Sachin Gupta studied Economics in only the 2 and 3 year of B.Com
(Hons.) course undertaken by him and cleared the three papers of
Economics in the examination conducted by the University.
10. In the year 2001, the respondent of W.P.(C) No.575/2013; Neelam
Rana, obtained a B.Sc. degree from Maharishi Dayanand University,
Rohtak and had not studied English as a subject in any of the three years
of the graduation course. Thereafter, Neelam Rana obtained a M.A.
(English) degree from the same University in the year 2006 after
undergoing two years study.
11. Pertaining to the other three writ petitions before we note the facts
personal to the respondents of the writ petitions, we note that till the
academic session 2003-04 a student who opted for a B.A. (Pass) course in
the University of Delhi had to study two languages: English and Hindi in
all three years of the course. In the year 2003, Delhi University set up a
B.A. Restructuring Committee to formulate ‘ Foundation and Application
Courses ’ and take appropriate measures to implement the program. The
Committee was of the view that the B.A. (Pass) course should be replaced
by a new program of study leading to the B.A. degree. The Academic
Council of Delhi University accepted the report of the Committee and
decided that the new B.A. program course shall come into force with
effect from July, 2004. It is significant to note here that under the B.A.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 7 of 24
program course two courses in two languages: Hindi and English were
offered to the students; one course of each language was offered to the
students in first year and remaining one course of each language was
offered to the students in the second or the third year as per the choice of
the student. Meaning thereby, the students who opted for new B.A.
program did not study two languages: English and Hindi in all three years
of program but only in two years.
12. It would be worthwhile to note the perspective and objectives
behind introduction of aforesaid new B.A. program course by Delhi
University:-
“ PERSPECTIVE
The perspective for the B.A. programme is based on the view
that there is need for an undergraduate programme relevant to
the immediate environment of social opportunities while, at the
same time, giving the student basic intellectual equipment
expected of a programme of higher education.
OBJECTIVES
a. The B.A. programme of the University of Delhi should be
a useful and attractive programme that enables a Graduate to
acquire the basic intellectual equipment in terms of thinking
ability, linguistic skills and reasonable knowledge in certain
fields with which he/she can enter the world of work.
c. By offering a combination of relevant courses, changing
the method of teaching in the direction of greater interaction
between teachers and students and reorganizing the
examination system, this objective is sought to be achieved
within the overall framework of the existing workload and
faculty strength in the colleges.
d. The structure and the contents of the programme make it
an integrated and interdisciplinary programme with flexibility
and choice.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 8 of 24
e. Thus the B.A. progamme will provide the students a
demanding, but worthwhile and enjoyable experience, in the
form of a liberal education to enter the wider world of work or
go for higher studies after three years of college.” (Emphasis
Supplied)
13. In the year 2004 the respondent of W.P. (C) No.4483/2012; namely
Vikram Singh took admission in (new) B.A. program course conducted
by Delhi University and was awarded B.A. (Program) degree by the
University on successful completion of the course. He studied Hindi
language in the second and the third year of the B.A. program course
undertaken by him.
14. In the year 2005 the respondent of W.P. (C) No.4301/2012; namely
Nainika, took admission in the (new) B.A. program course conducted by
Delhi University and was awarded B.A. (Program) degree by the
University on successful completion of the course. She studied English
language in only the first and the second year of the B.A. program course
undertaken by her.
15. In the year 2003 the respondent of W.P. (C) No.2514/2012;
namely, Snehlata obtained a B.A. degree from Maharishi Dayanand
University, Rohtak and had not studied Sanskrit as a subject in any of the
three years of the graduation course. After completing the graduation
course in the year 2003, she cleared three papers in Sanskrit language in
an examination conducted by Maharishi Dayanand University and
obtained a degree B.A.(Additional) pertaining to Sanskrit subject in the
year 2004 i.e. after studying Sanskrit for only one year. In respect of
which B.A.(Additional) Degree the University armed her with a
document as under:-
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 9 of 24
“Point No.1.1. Clause 19 of the ordinance of
B.A./B.SC./B.COM provides as under:
i) A candidate who has passed B.A. three years course of
this university may appear in additional subject (s) prescribed
for the course in the subsequent examination except the subject
(s) with which he/she has already passed the course.
Point 2 Sanskrit (Elective) subject for regular as well as
distance mode and additional subject (Sanskrit) in B.A. is one
and same and equal in all subject.” (Emphasis Supplied)
16. In the National Capital Territory of Delhi appointment to the post
of Trained Graduate Teachers under the Government of NCT of Delhi as
also the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are effected through a statutory
board called the Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (DSSSB),
which undertakes the selection process and forwards the list of successful
candidates to the Education Department of the Government of NCT of
Delhi or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi where scrutiny of the
certificates pertaining to the essential educational qualifications as also
character is conducted before letters offering appointment are issued.
17. In the years 2010 and 2011, DSSSB issued advertisements inviting
applications from eligible candidates to be appointed as Trained Graduate
Teachers in various disciplines such as T.G.T. (English), T.G.T. (Hindi),
T.G.T. (Sanskrit) and T.G.T. (Social Science).
18. In response to the advertisement, respondents Nainika and Neelam
Rana in W.P.(C) Nos.4301/2012 and 575/2013 respectively, applied for
the post of T.G.T. (English); respondent Sachin Gupta in W.P.(C)
No.1520/2012 applied for the post of T.G.T. (Social Science); respondent
Vikram Singh in W.P. (C) No.4483/2012 applied for the post of T.G.T.
(Hindi) and respondent Snehlata in W.P. (C) No.2514/2012 applied for
the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). They successfully cleared the written
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 10 of 24
examination conducted by DSSSB and were declared successful.
However, save and except respondent Vikram Singh in W.P.(C)
4483/2012, the Directorate of Education did not issue appointment letters
to the respondents in the other writ petitions. Respondent Vikram Singh
was issued an appointment letter by the Directorate of Education but
thereafter he did not receive any communication requiring him to join for
duty. On account of aforesaid facts, the respondents of all the writ
petitions made enquiries at the Directorate and learnt that they are not
being appointed/required to join for duty on account of the reason the
Graduation degree obtained by them, as per the Directorate of Education,
did not satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Recruitment
Rules.
19. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Directorate of Education in
appointing/requiring them to join for duty to the posts of T.G.T., the
respondents of all the writ petitions filed separate applications under
Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi highlighting therein that the Graduation degrees obtained by them
satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and
thus sought a direction to be issued against the Government of NCT of
Delhi to appoint them as a T.G.T. in the respective discipline with all
consequential benefits.
20. In the replies filed it was pleaded by the Directorate of Education
that the respondents Nainika, Sachin Gupta and Vikram Singh could not
be appointed to the post of T.G.T. for the reason the Graduation degrees
obtained by them did not satisfy the eligibility condition prescribed in the
Recruitment Rules read with the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010: that
the candidate should have studied the concerned subject i.e. the subject
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 11 of 24
for which the candidate applies in all parts/years of graduation since
neither Nainika nor Sachin Gupta nor Vikram Singh had studied English,
a subject pertaining to Social Science and Hindi respectively in all three
years of the Graduation course undertaken by them. Pertaining to Sachin
Gupta, we need to highlight that he had applied for the post of T.G.T.
Social Science and the Recruitment Rule required a study of at least any
two of the seven subjects listed in the applicable Recruitment Rule and he
was a student of B.Com (Hons.) and was claiming on the strength of
having studied Economics and Commerce. As regards Snehlata and
Neelam Rana the Directorate of Education took the stand that neither had
studied Sanskrit or English in their Graduation course.
21. The Tribunal has allowed the applications filed by the respondents
of all the writ petitions.
22. By a common judgment dated November 28, 2011, the Tribunal
has allowed the applications filed by respondents Nainika and Vikram
Singh essentially on the ground that in view of the decision of a learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2576/2002 ‘ Saroj Rana & Anr.
v Government of NCT of Delhi ’ decided on July 25, 2008 and some
earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the subject that the candidates who
have passed concerned subject i.e. the subject for which the candidate
applies as compulsory subject(s) would also be entitled to be appointed as
a T.G.T. in the concerned subject and thus according to the Tribunal it
was immaterial whether respondents Nainika and Vikram Singh had
studied English/Hindi in all three years of Graduation; particularly in the
light of clarification given by Delhi University that languages
(English/Hindi) were taught to the students in only two years in (new)
B.A. program introduced by the University with effect from July, 2004.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 12 of 24
Similar is the reasoning of the Tribunal in allowing the application filed
by respondent Sachin Gupta vide judgment dated August 11, 2011.
23. Vide judgment dated December 01, 2011 the Tribunal has allowed
the application filed by respondent Snehlata on the ground that the stand
taken by the Directorate of Education that Snehlata had not studied
Sanskrit as an ‘ elective ’ subject in all parts/years of her graduation course
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Snehlata has cleared all three
papers relating to ‘Sanskrit’ conducted by the University after she had
completed the three years Graduation course with Hindi as the subject.
24. Vide judgment dated February 03, 2012 the Tribunal allowed the
application filed by Neelam Rana on the ground that since she has
obtained M.A. (English), a qualification which is higher than the
qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (English,)
Neelam Rana should be deemed to have satisfied the eligibility condition
prescribed for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (English).
25. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment(s), the Directorate of
Education has filed the above captioned five writ petitions marching
under the banner of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
26. From the afore-noted conspectus of facts, it is clear that the
controversy which has arisen in the present case(s) relates to the
corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 as per which the elective subject must
have been studied by the candidate in all years of Graduation and the
paper should be of at least 100 marks in each year.
27. The questions which arise and need to be answered in the present
petition(s) are: (i) Whether the corrigendum was incorporated formally by
amendment of the Recruitment Rules? If yes, what is the effect thereof?
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 13 of 24
(ii) If the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 remains as an executive
instruction, what is the effect thereof? and (iii) What is the exact meaning
of the corrigendum?
28. On a bare reading of the afore-noted extract(s) of the Recruitment
Rules existing in the year 2010 and 2011 i.e. when the advertisement(s)
for appointment to the post of T.G.T. in various subjects were issued in
the instant case(s), it is clear that the minimum essential educational
qualification stipulated for appointment to the post of T.G.T.
(MIL)/T.G.T. in is B.A.(Hons.) degree in concerned subject i.e. the
subject for which the candidate applies or a B.A. degree with the
concerned subject included as an elective subject in the course from a
recognized university/Bachelor’s degree (Hons./Pass) in two school
subjects of which at least English, Mathematics, Natural/Physical
Science, Social Science should have been at elective level from a
recognized University.
29. The expression ‘ elective subject ’ was not defined in the
Recruitment Rules.
30. On March 13, 2010 a corrigendum was issued by the Government
defining the expression ‘ elective subject ’ occurring in the Recruitment
Rules, which corrigendum was superseded by another corrigendum
issued on March 30, 2010. As per corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 the
expression ‘ elective subject ’ occurring in the Recruitment Rules means
that ‘ The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as
mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word
may also include main subject as practiced in different universities‟.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 14 of 24
31. The necessity to issue the corrigendum was to give clarity as to
what was meant by ‘ elective subject ’; for the reason there was no
unanimity of opinion as to what would be an elective subject since
different universities in India follow different procedures and
methodologies of imparting education.
32. The study of various disciplines of education i.e. subjects taught is
broadly classified into three categories i.e. (i) core subjects, (ii) elective
subjects and (iii) mandatory subjects. The difference in the three is as
under:
(a) Core Subjects: The student shall complete successfully all the core
subjects prescribed for the program to become eligible for the award of
Degree. Such courses together with their grades and credits earned should
be included in the Grade Card issued by the College at the end of each
semester.
(b) Elective Subjects: The student shall further complete successfully
the total credit equivalent of the elective subjects offered in the program
to become eligible for the award of the Degree. The student can choose
the subject of his/her interest from among the available credits.
(c) Mandatory Subjects: The student shall complete successfully all
the mandatory courses prescribe from time to time by the college. These
subjects however do not carry any credits.
33. Aforesaid is the classification which can be found across the board
for all universities in India. We may clarify that in some universities
mandatory subjects are referred to as subsidiary subjects. The difference
in the three is that the marks awarded for the core and elective subjects
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 15 of 24
are reckoned for the purposes of the grade awarded but not for mandatory
or subsidiary subjects.
34. In the above backdrop, we proceed to answer the three questions
posed by us in the foregoing paras.
35. With regard to question (i) posed above, the answer is a clear NO.
It is an admitted position that the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 has
not been incorporated formally in the Recruitment Rules and remains as
an executive instruction.
36. It is settled legal position that when the statutory rules are silent on
any point the Government can fill up gaps and supplement rules by
issuing executive instructions.
37. As already noted hereinabove, the Recruitment Rules do not define
the expression ‘ elective subject ’ occurring therein. In order to fill up said
gap, the Government issued corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 defining
the expression ‘ elective subject ’. Such being the position, the
Government was justified in issuing corrigendum dated March 30, 2010
and the same i.e. corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 will operate the field
to give meaning to the expression ‘ elective subject ’ occurring in the
Recruitment Rules.
38. This takes us to the most crucial question arising in the present
petitions: Whether the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 meant that the
subject concerned had to be studied in each year of the three years’
Graduation course?
39. What is the ethos of the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010?
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 16 of 24
40. To repeat, corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 prescribes that the
expression ‘ elective subject ’ occurring in the Recruitment Rules means
that ‘ The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as
mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word
may also include main subject as practiced in different universities‟. It is
clear that the ethos of the prescription contained in the corrigendum dated
March 30, 2010 that ‘ the candidate should have studied the subject
concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years of graduation‟ is
that the candidate should have a deep understanding of the subject in
which he is desirous of imparting education to the children.
41. All universities in India do not offer a particular elective subject in
all three years’ of graduation course as in the case of Nainika, Vikram
Singh and Sachin Gupta, where Delhi University did not teach
English/Hindi/Economics in all three years of B.A. program/B.Com (H)
course (s) conducted by it. If the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 is
given a literal interpretation, all such candidates who have studied
concerned subject i.e. the subject for which they have applied from the
Universities which are not teaching said subject in all three years’ of
Graduation course offered by them would be rendered ineligible for
appointment to the post of T.G.T. despite the fact they have studied the
concerned subject in all parts/years in which the subject is taught by the
university and have a good understanding thereof. This is absurd. It is a
settled legal position that where literal meaning of a statute or rule leads
to an absurdity, the principle of literal interpretation need not be followed
and recourse should be taken to the purposive and meaningful
interpretation to avoid injustice, absurdity and contradiction so that the
intent of the purpose of Legislature is given effect to. Therefore, a
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 17 of 24
meaningful and practical interpretation has to be given to the
corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 and same should be interpreted as
follows: ‘ the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as
mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years in which the subject was taught
during the Graduation course‟
42. It has also to be kept in mind that whereas the University of Delhi
was teaching the concerned subject and was testing the knowledge of the
students each year by assigning 100 marks to the paper i.e. three papers
were being taught in the three years, as a result of restructuring, the
number of papers continued to be three with marks assigned to each
paper, being 100, except that now the three papers are taught in only two
years. In other words the previous and the current position continues to
be practically the same. It hardly matters whether three papers of 100
marks each are taught over three years or three papers of 100 marks each
are taught in two years. A ready illustration could be a rational decision
taken that unless a student studies History up to a particular level he may
not understand the nuances of Political Science and hence a University
may decide that the subject of Political Science should be taught after a
foundation course in History is taught and this would mean that the
subject of Political Science is introduced in the second year of study and
continued in the third. The previous position of teaching Political
Science in each year with one paper each year having 100 marks is
replaced by teaching Political Science only in the second and the third
year but retaining the three papers each having 100 marks.
43. In view of the aforesaid, respondents Nainika, Vikram Singh and
Sachin Gupta who have studied the concerned subject,
English/Hindi/Economics (one of the main subjects prescribed for T.G.T.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 18 of 24
(Social Science), in all the years in which the subject was taught during
the graduation courses undertaken by them are eligible to be appointed to
the post of T.G.T. (English)/(Hindi)/Social Science.
44. As regards respondent Snehlata, there is a subtle but material
difference between the position of respondents Nainika, Vikram Singh
and Sachin Gupta and she.
45. Respondent Snehlata had applied for being appointed to the post of
T.G.T. (Sanskrit). It is an admitted fact that she has not studied Sanskrit
subject in any year of the Graduation course undertaken by her, but has
subsequently appeared in an examination conducted by the University
and cleared three papers pertaining to Sanskrit subject after studying the
same in one year.
46. The corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 prescribes that ‘ the
candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the
RRs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective word may also include
main subject as practiced in different universities‟. We emphasize the
word ‘ studied ’ occurring in the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010.
Respondent Snehlata who has not studied concerned subject i.e. Sanskrit
subject in the graduation course undertaken by her is clearly not eligible
for appointment to the post of T.G.T. (Sanskrit). After clearing the
Graduation course and obtaining a degree what she has done is to have
studied some kind of a course designed by the University and has learnt
Sanskrit. The degree which she has in Graduation does not pertain to the
subject Sanskrit.
47. The controversy pertaining to Neelam Rana is not in the context of
what would be an elective subject studied during Graduation. Admittedly
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 19 of 24
Neelam Rana seeks appointment as T.G.T. English, a subject which she
never studied in her Graduation course which we find was B.Sc. (Botany)
but she fights the battle on the strength of having obtained a Post
Graduate Degree in English i.e. M.A.(English).
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
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 20 of 24
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.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the MCD it has not been
stated as to how the study of Hindi as a language at higher
secondary or intermediate level by the candidates is more
relevant than the study of Hindi as a language in BA pass
course for the job requirement. Nothing has been brought to
our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the Board and
the MCD which could justify the stand of the respondents that
the study of Hindi as a language at higher secondary level by a
candidate has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved,
which object by the study of Hindi at B.A. level by a candidate
cannot be achieved. No study or evaluation or analysis has
been placed before us to show that the candidates having Hindi
as a subject at the secondary level are better qualified and
equipped to teach primary students than the candidates having
Hindi at the graduate level. In case the argument of the learned
counsel appearing for the MCD and the Board is taken to its
logical conclusion it will lead to absurd results. There may be a
case where a person did not take up Hindi as a language at
higher secondary level and took it up at higher levels, namely,
B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. Surely, it can not be said that the person
who had taken Hindi as a subject at the Graduate level,
Masters level or Doctorate level is less qualified for the job
than the person who had taken up Hindi as a subject at the
higher secondary level. The counter affidavit of the MCD is not
at all helpful for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that
there is any valid justification for the stand of the Board and
the M.C.D. in considering higher secondary with Hindi as an
essential requirement for the post of Primary Assistant
Teachers. The invidious distinction made by the Board and the
MCD for ignoring candidates with higher qualification is
unwarranted and without any valid basis.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 21 of 24
10. It is significant to note that nothing is stated in the counter
affidavit as to how Hindi at the Higher Secondary level is
helpful for teaching primary level students. What is so special
about Hindi at the secondary level, which attribute Hindi at
higher level is lacking has not been explained in the counter
affidavit or the arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondents. Hindi as a language has not been mentioned in the
advertisement as a special qualification for imparting
education to the students at the primary level. 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.
11. We are supported in our view by a decision of the
Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Narayan Yadav Vs. District
Inspector of Schools and Ors., 1988 (3) SLR Allahabad 42, in
which it was held as follows:-
As regards the eligibility of respondent No. 3 for the post of
Lecturer in Hindi, the learned counsel for the respondents drew
out attention to N.B. (Note)(2) below the rule prescribing
minimum qualifications for 'Hindi Teachers for Intermediate'
contained in Appendix A which provides as follows:
"The Hindi Teachers may not be required to have a Degree in
Sanskrit in those institutions where qualified Sanskrit teacher is
available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Court".
The above note clarifies the intention why B.A. with Sanskrit
was kept as an essential qualification for a Hindi Teacher for
Intermediate Classes. The person should be such who can also
teach Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Course. The qualification
prescribed for Sanskrit Teacher for Intermediate' is 'M.A. with
Sanskrit preferably trained'. As respondent no. 3 is M.A. in
Sanskrit, he is fully qualified to teach Sanskrit also.
Consequently, respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be
disqualified for being appointed teacher in Hindi simply
because he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', especially when he is
M.A. in Sanskrit and is qualified to teach Sanskrit portion of
Hindi Court, so that requirement of 'B.A. with Sanskrit' is not
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 22 of 24
applicable in his case. Moreover, respondent no. 3 may not be
having Sanskrit as a subject for his Bachelors' degree. He is,
however, having Master's Degree in Sanskrit, which is certainly a
higher qualification than B.A. with Sanskrit. Consequently, the claim
of respondent no. 3 could not be rejected merely on the ground that
he is not 'B.A. with Sanskrit', when he is admittedly M.A. Sanskrit'.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
49. A similar view was taken by a Single Judge of this Court in the decision
reported as 186 (2012) DLT 132 Kalpana Pandey v Director of Education &
Ors. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of Court in LPA
No.640/2010 ‘ Director of Education v Kalpana Pandey ’ decided on September
18, 2012.
50. In view of aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, we hold that
respondent Neelam Rana is eligible for being appointed to the post of T.G.T.
(English), particularly when the Directorate of Education has placed no
material before us to show that the person who has studied English at graduate
level would be better equipped to teach English to students vis-à-vis a person
who has obtained a Post Ggraduate degree in English language.
51. In view of above discussion, save and except respondent Snehlata,
respondents in all other petitions i.e. Sachin Gupta, Nainika, Vikram Singh and
Snehlata are held eligible for being appointed to the posts of T.G.T. applied by
them.
52. Accordingly W.P.(C) No.1520/2012, W.P.(C) No.4483/2012, W.P.(C)
No.4301/2012 and W.P.(C) No.575/2013 are disposed of upholding the claim
of the respondents in said writ petitions before the Tribunal as per Original
Application with the exception that they shall not be entitled to back wages but
would be entitled to all consequential benefits such as seniority as per their
merit position in the select panel and notional pay fixation with reference to the
date of their joining being treated as the one on which the person immediately
junior to them joined duty.
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 23 of 24
53. W.P.(C) No.2514/2012 is allowed and impugned decision dated
December 01, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in favour of Snehlata is set aside
and the Original Application filed by her is dismissed.
54. Before concluding we pen a thought for the benefit of the Directorate of
Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. With the march of times the
imparting of education at the Graduate level is changing all over the world. It
has been recognized that it would be useless to start teaching a particular
subject without a basic study of some other subject; and we have already given
the example above pertaining to Political Science. The hitherto fore practice of
teaching a subject each year with a paper of 100 marks in each year is giving
way to the subject being taught in the second and the third of the Graduation
course but retaining the three papers each having 100 marks. The march of
times has led the University of Delhi to pioneer a Bachelorette degree i.e. a
four years course to obtain the first degree after senior secondary. The
Directorate of Education should keep in mind that it has to march in tune with
the rest in the onward march in time and thus keeping in view that it is the
substance which is recognized by law and not the form, the Directorate of
Education should formally suitably amend their Recruitment Rules by
specifying the eligibility norms in relation to the substance and not the form.
Otherwise, as we can see the future cord of time: Students from University of
Delhi would be in perpetual litigation with the Directorate of Education as and
when they seek employment as Teachers in Delhi.
55. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2013
Mamta
WP(C) 1520/2012 & conn.matters Page 24 of 24