Pradeep Kumar And Ors vs Govt. Of NCTD And Ors

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through the medium of this Original Application (OA), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief:

"(i) To quash and set aside the office order No-19.02.2014 in respect of each applicants whereby the candidature of the applicants to the post of Special Education Teacher has been rejected and to further direct the respondents that the applicants be given the appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher in present selection process conducted by DSSSB in pursuance of Advt. No-1/13 Post Code-1/13 with all consequential benefit including seniority, promotion and pay & allowance".

The factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records, is as under:

2.1 Pursuant to Annexure A-2 advertisement No.01/13 published by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) - respondent no.2, the applicants applied for the post of Special Education Teacher (Post Code 01/13). The advertisement had notified 927 vacancies for the said post [UR 468, OBC-251, SC 139 and ST 69]. Out of these vacancies, 27 were reserved for Physically Handicapped (PH) category. The essential qualifications prescribed were as under:

"i) Graduate with B. Ed. (Special Education) or B. Ed. With a two years Diploma in Special Education or Post Graduate Professional Diploma in Special Education or any other equivalent qualification approved by Rehabilitation Council of India.

ii) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)."

2.2 The applicants belong to OBC category and they are from outside Delhi. They had acquired CTET qualification as OBC candidates in their respective States.

2.3 As per the criteria prescribed by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the minimum qualifying marks for passing CTET is 50% with a provision of 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks for reserved categories, viz. SC/ST/OBC/PH. The CTET is conducted by CBSE-respondent no.4. The applicants have acquired CTET qualification by availing the 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks as OBC candidates.

2.4 Since the applicants do not come under the OBC category of Delhi, they participated in the selection process for the post of Special Education Teacher, pursuant to Annexure A-2 advertisement of DSSSB, as general candidates.

2.5 The selection was to be done through a written examination which was conducted on 28.04.2013. The applicants participated in the written examination. The result of the written examination was declared on 24.05.2013 and a result notice was published showing the names of 550 candidates with marks secured by them. The names of these applicants also figured in the result notice. The details of which are as under:

Applicant No.1

Pradeep Kumar

98.25

Applicant No.2

Shambhoo Prasad Gupta

85.25

Applicant No.3

Shyam Sundra

107.00

Applicant No.4

Divaker

101.00

Applicant No.5

Chandan Sharma

85.00

Applicant No. 6

Lal Bahadur

106.75

Applicant No.7

Mamta Gupta

81.75

2.6 The DSSSB published impugned Annexure A-1 rejection noticed dated 19.02.2014 in regard to 30 candidates whose name had appeared in the result notice. In the remarks column qua these applicants, it is indicated that their candidature is rejected on the ground that they had acquired CTET qualification as OBC but they are OBC outsider.

2.7 The grievance of the applicants is that despite they having secured more marks in the written examination than the last selected candidate under the general category, they have not been recommended by the DSSSB for appointment to the post of Special Education Teacher. They have accordingly approached this Tribunal in the instant OA and have impugned the Annexure A-1 rejection notice and have prayed for the main relief, as indicated in para-1 supra.

Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicants filed their rejoinder.

With the completion of the pleadings, the case was taken up for hearing the arguments of the parties on 13.08.2018. Arguments of Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and that of Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents were heard.

The main thrust of the argument of Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants was that the applicants are not claiming any benefits on the basis of CTET certificates which they have obtained in their respective States as OBC candidates. He stated that the CBSE had declared them successful in the CTET albeit considering them as OBC candidates and that their claim for selection is entirely based on their merit in the written examination. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas Sankhala & Ors. etc. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors. etc.. [ (2017) 1 SCC 350], in an identical case, has clearly held that a candidate belonging to a reserved category and having obtained the CTET qualification as such, is entitled for being considered as a general category candidate on the basis of his merit. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:

"26. After taking note of the respective contentions of different parties appearing before it, the High Court pointed out that there were two peripheral issues which needed a decision before adverting to the central issue about the legality of the concession granted by the State Government. The selected candidates had challenged the maintainability of writ petitions on twin grounds, namely, non-impleadment of necessary parties and estoppel. After discussing these preliminary issues, the Court brushed aside these contentions of the non-writ petitioners. It is not necessary to dwell into the same as these contentions were not repeated before us."

Per contra, Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, drawing attention to the Annexure A-2 advertisement of DSSSB, submitted that one of the essential qualifications was CTET conducted by CBSE. Further, in terms of the notification dated 30.11.2012 published in the Delhi Gazette on 30.11.2012, 5% relaxation is allowed to reserved category candidates, as stated in the said notification as under:

"The CBSE is issuing CTET marks statement to the candidate with conditions that candidates securing 60% and above marks will be considered as CTET qualified. Further, the NCTE vide notification 29.07.2011 specifically provided that "Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks, shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.

Therefore, candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH shall be allowed relaxation up to 5% in qualifying marks in CTET conducted by the CBSE".

6.1 He also drew our attention to NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011, wherein 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks is allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH (p.148-49 of the paper-book). He thus argued that since these applicants have secured CTET qualification from outside Delhi as OBC candidates by availing 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks, they cannot be considered for employment against the post of Special Education Teacher in the GNCTD.

We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings. Admittedly, these applicants have acquired CTET qualification as OBC candidates from their respective States and have availed 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in the CTET. Pertinent to mention that CTET qualification is just like any other qualifications e.g. BA, MA, B.Ed. etc. The stand taken by the respondents that CTET from outside in respect of reserved category candidates cannot be accepted for employment in GNCTD is indeed very strange. It cannot be denied that these applicants have acquired the CTET qualification. Hence rejection of the said qualification of the applicants would mean that GNCTD does not recognize the same. It is just like a candidate acquiring an educational certificate/degree from a State Education Board/University with grace marks where there is a provision for grace marks and due to this factor, the authorities in some other States refuse to recognize the said educational certificate/degree since the Education Board/Universities of those States do not allow grace marks.

The issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas Sankhala & Ors. (supra). In the said case, some of the reserved category candidates had done fairly well in the written test and thus by virtue of their merit positions, were entitled to be considered as general candidates. In the selection process therein, 80% weightage was given to the performance in the written test and 20% to the performance in CTET. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the CTET qualification acquired by candidates under the reserved category availing 5% reservation benefit in the qualifying marks were eligible to be considered under the general category. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also rationalized it and observed that by virtue of 20% weightage given to the CTET marks in the final selection, the advantage gained by them by way of availing 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks, has got completely neutralised.

In the instant case, we find that there is no weightage given to the performance in the CTET. The merit list is prepared entirely on the basis of the performance in the written examination. Hence, relying on the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikas Sankhala & Ors. (supra), we hold that since the applicants possess CTET qualification, there is no bar in considering them under the general category for appointment on the basis of their standing in the merit list.

In the conspectus of the discussions in the foregoing paras, this OA is allowed. The impugned Annexure A-2 advertisement is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue letters of appointment to the applicants for the post of Special Education Teacher if they are found eligible otherwise in terms of their positions in the merit list. This shall be done within a period of 08 weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.