AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Shakdher, J
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the tribunal') in O.A.No.2652/2017.
The petitioners before us, presently, are aggrieved by the fact that, they have not been considered for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Computer Science) (Post Code 192/14) [hereafter referred as "TGT (Computer Science)"].
2.1 We may also note that, apart from the official respondents, some private respondents are also arrayed as parties to the instant petition. While Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate, represents the petitioners, Ms. Sangita Rai, Advocate, represents some of the private respondents. The private respondents, we are told, are arrayed as respondent nos.4 to 22 in the writ petition.
3 It would also be relevant to note that, some of the private respondents had approached this court on an earlier occasion, which resulted in the Division Bench of this court passing a judgment, on 21.12.2018. This judgment was rendered in W.P.(C.) No.13885/2018, titled Dayanand & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
3.1. Interestingly, Ms. Rai represented the petitioners, at that stage. Via the aforesaid petition, challenge had been laid to the tribunal's order dated 12.10.2018. The court, after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the said order of the tribunal and remanded the case to the tribunal for a fresh hearing.
3.2. The rationale provided by the Division Bench, vide its judgment dated 21.12.2018, is adverted to in paragraph 3. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:
"3. Mr. Luthra has sought to justify the findings returned by the Tribunal by relying upon inter alia on the judgment of the Anamika Shakla v. State of Madhya Pradesh in WA No. 917/2016 decided on 14.12.2016. He also submits that the MCA Degree obtained by the respondents is equivalent to graduation in any subject with 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information and Communication and Technology, Government of India, which is also one of the qualifications prescribed. In our view, the Tribunal should have undertaken a more detailed and in-depth examination of this particular issue i.e. as to whether the two year degree of MCA obtained after graduation in any subject, could be considered to be a higher qualification, or at par., with the three year BCA degree, and whether the attainment of MCA qualification subsumes within it the qualification of BCA. The views of the Governing Councils such as AICTE, Association of Indian Universities, who are concerned with the field of Computer Education, should also have been called for."
Mr. Agarwal has drawn our attention to the essential qualification, provided in the relevant recruitment rules [in short "RRs"] for being considered for appointment to the subject post. It would be relevant, therefore, to allude to that part of the RRs, which concerns essential qualifications:
"Essential Qualification-
Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University
OR
Graduation in Computer Science from a recognised University (Provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject)
OR
B.E./B.Tech. (Computer Science/Information Technology) from a recognised University
OR
Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC,Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt. of India."
4.1. Mr. Agarwal has argued, and in our view, quite correctly, that, the tribunal has not examined the issue as to, whether or not the petitioners have qualifications which are equivalent to the following essential qualification provided in the RRs:
"1.....OR Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Government of India"
4.2. Mr. Agarwal says that, the petitioners have acquired a degree in Master of Computer Application (MCA), and that MCA is equivalent to the 'A' Level Course, which is conducted by the Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses [in short "DOEACC"; presently known as, National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT)]. For this purpose, Mr. Agarwal relies upon the notification dated 26.09.2000, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources & Development, Department of Secondary Education & Higher Education, which is appended to the affidavit filed by NIELIT, before the tribunal.
4.3. In addition, thereto, Mr. Agarwal also relies upon a report prepared by the, then Director (Education), Directorate of Education (DoE) i.e., Ms. Saumya Gupta. In particular, emphasis has been laid by Mr. Agarwal on the following portions of the report:
"32. Coming to the point of whether the higher education pre supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification it is seen that the candidates have either the qualification of Masters in Computer Application (MCA) or M.Sc in Computer Science. The qualification prescribed in the RRs for the post of TGT (Computer Science) provide for (1) BCA or (2) Graduation in Computer Science or (3) Graduation in any subject and 'A' level course from DOEACC Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. The qualification prescribed for PGT (Computer Science) provides for (1) M.Sc Computer Science/MCA plus One year teaching experience, amongst other qualifications. Therefore, the qualifications of M.Sc Computer Science as well as MCA appear to the standing up to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned at serial no.2 above.
The matter was also examined to check whether the candidates also fulfil the principle (1) laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court a stated above. In this context, it was observed that as per information available on the site of NIELIT (erstwhile DOEACC Society, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Govt. of India, 'A' Level Course of NIELIT Scheme is equivalent to advance diploma in Computer Application. After completion of 'A' Level course, students can further enrol in 'B' Level course of NIELIT scheme. Further, 'B' Level course of NIELIT Scheme has been recognised by the Ministry of Human Resource Development as professionally equivalent to MCA degree course. As per the eligibility condition laid down by NIELIT for admission for 'B' Level course, students who have done an 'A' Level course are exempted from the first two semesters. Further, a comparative chart of the syllabus of 'A' level and 'B' level was also examined as per detail below:-
Comparison between 'A' level course and 'B' level course
'A' Level
'B' Level
A1- R4
IT Tools and Business System
B1.1-R4
IT Tools and Business Systems
A2- R4
Internet Technology and Web Design
B1.2-R4
Internet Technology and Web Design
A3- R4
Programming Problem
through 'C'
and Solving
B1.3-R4
Programming and Problem Solving through 'C' Language
A4- R4
Computer Architecture
System
B1.4-R4
Computer System Architecture
A5- R4
Structural System Analysis and Design
B1.5-R4
Structural System Analysis and Design
A6- R4
Data Structure through 'C++'
B2.1-R4
Data Structure through C++
A7- R4
Introduction of Data Base Management
System
B2.2-R4
Introduction of Data Management System
Base
A8- R4
Basics of OS, UNIX and Shell
Programming
B2.3-R4
Basics of OS, UNIX and Shell Programming
A9- R4
Data Communication and Network
Technologies
B2.4-R4
Data Communication Network Technologies
and
B2.5-R4
Elective 1 (one of the following two subjects to be chosen)
1-R4 introduction to object Oriented Programming through Java
B2.52-R4 Software Testing and
Quality Management
B3.1-R4
Management Fundamentals and Information Systems
B3.2-R4
Basic Mathematics
B3.3-R4
Software Engineering & CASE Tools
B3.4-R4
Operating Systems
B3.5-R4
Networking & Mobile Communications
B4.1-R3
Computer Based Statistical & Numerical Techniques
B4.2-R3
Discrete Structure
B4.3-R3
Software Testing and Quality Management
B4.4-R3
Computer Graphics & Multimedia Systems
B4.5-R3
Internet Technologies and Tools
B5.1-R3
Professional and Business Communications
B5.2-R3
Object Oriented Database Management System
B5.3-R3
Network Management and Information Security
BE-R3
Any two Elective from BE1- Respondent No.3 to BE10- Respondent No.3
**List of the Subjects from which the above electives can be chosen are:
BE1-R3
Embedded Systems
BE2-R3
AI and Applications
BE3-R3
E-Business
BE4-R3
Principle of Modeling & Simulation
BE5-R3
Parallel Computing
BE6-R3
Software Project Management
BE7-R3
Applied Bio-Informatics
BE8-R3
Digital Image Processing
BE9-R3
Accounting & Financial Management
BE10-R3
Applied Operations Research
At 'B' level there are two projects. The first one will be as for 'A' level and to be completed as for 'A' level. The second project should approximately amount to an effort of 500 man-hours, 300 marks are assigned. The project should be chosen by the candidates and approved by the DOEACC Society. The should be submitted after completion of all papers with a fee of Rs.3000/- and a certificate. DOEACC Society will constitute a Board of two
experts to conduct a viva-voce.
From the above chart, it can clearly be seen that all the nine subjects studied at the 'A' Level are also the starting nine subjects for the 'B' Level course. Thus, it can be inferred that for the qualification of MCA which is equivalent to 'B' Level course, has been acquired in the same faculty and thus pre supposes the acquisition qualification of 'A' Level prescribed for the post of TGT (Computer Science).
xxx xxx xxx
Thus the only objection of the branch that now remains to be seen is there could be numerous candidates who possess such higher qualifications/degree who may not have applied as RRs did not contain these qualifications and therefore, giving appointments to these candidates would amount to depriving the other highly qualified candidates who did not apply. In this context, it is seen that this issue was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Jyoti K.K. and others VS. Kerala Public Service Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 7 of the judgment has mentioned that the High Court while dismissing the petition of the petitioners had been of the view that "all those who had similar or even better qualifications than those candidates would not have applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and such a position would result in fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications". The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while holding that the stand of the High Court was not justified, has at para 9 of the judgment held as under:-
"In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory rules have been published and those rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such rules or make himself aware of the rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of appellants would amount to fraud on the public".
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the judgments passed by the various courts including Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the concerned view that the candidates possessing the qualification of MCA/M.Sc (Computer Science) should be given appointment to the post of TGT (Computer Science). This would not only give us the opportunity to engage the services of better qualified and meritorious teachers in a timely manner but would also spare the department unnecessary litigation."
Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3, cannot but accept the fact that, the issue brought to fore by Mr. Agarwal has not been dealt with, in the impugned order, by the tribunal.
5.1. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, who appears on behalf of respondent no.2, submits likewise.
5.2. Mr. Manish Mohan, who appears on behalf of respondent no.23/NIELIT, also takes the same position.
Insofar as Ms. Rai is concerned, while she represents, as indicated above, some of the private respondents, and contends that, the petitioners are not qualified for the subject post, she does fairly concede that, the issue raised by Mr. Agarwal has not been dealt with, in the impugned order.
6.1. According to Ms. Rai as well, the matter needs to be remanded to the tribunal for a de novo hearing in the matter.
Given this position, the order of the tribunal, dated 09.07.2021, is set aside.
7.1. The tribunal is directed, once again, to decide the matter afresh, bearing in mind, inter alia, the issue brought to fore by the petitioners before us i.e., that 'A' level course is equivalent to MCA.
7.2. Needless to add, that before a final order is rendered by the tribunal, all sides will be heard, including the private respondents who are represented by Ms. Rai.
7.3 We may also add that, the order passed by us will not impact the merits of the case.
7.4. In order to hasten the proceedings, the parties and/or their respective counsels will appear before the Registrar of the tribunal, on 28.10.2021.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the pending application shall also stand closed.