Subhashree Dash vs Union Of India & Ors

Asha Menon, J

CM APPL. 5793/2021

Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 1986/2021, CM APPL. 5792/2021

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.

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.

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

:

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"".

Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the advertisement, it has been clearly provided as follows :

C. For the post of TGT (Maths) :

The candidate should have studied Maths in all the years of graducation with any two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry, Electronics,

Computer Science, Statistics.

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.

BA (Hons.) in Maths and B.Sc. (Hons.) in any subject other than Maths are not eligible for the post of TGT (Maths).

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.

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.

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.

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.