Annu Yadav vs The Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.

MA No. 379/2018 (for preponement of date of hearing of the OA)

OA No. 264/2017

“1)

Degree from a recognized university or equivalent.

2)

Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent diploma in Library Science from a recognized University/Institute or equivalent.

3)

Experience of two years in a Library/Computerization of a Library from a recognized Institute or equivalent.” The applicant applied for the said post under OBC category. He was called for written examination held on 31.08.2014. He secured 74.75 marks in the written examination. Vide notice dated 14.03.2016, the applicant was required to appear at the Board Office along with all relevant documents and proof of recognition of one year certificate of computer application from a govt. recognized Institute. Being declared as provisionally selected, she appeared before the Board for document verification and produced all the relevant certificates. The candidature of the applicant has, however, been rejected vide impugned notice on the ground that Certificate in Computer application possessed by the applicant is not from a recognized institute.

“With reference to your letter No.F.4(407)/DSSSB/CC-I/2015/617/dated 04.01.2016, it is submitted that as per RR’s one year certificate in Computer Application Course is required from a Recognized Institute which can be recognized by Govt. of India/State Govt./UT Govt. No registered Institute is equivalent or recognized institute.” Based upon the aforesaid information furnished by the user department, the respondents have justified the rejection of candidature of the applicant.

“8.

After detailed hearing, the only issue which has emerged is whether the certificates in respect of Computer application filed by or, two years experience in Library/Computerization of Library as set forth under essential qualification in the advertisement has to be issued by a recognized Institute; if so, what is a recognized Institute in this behalf. The matter was referred by the respondent to All India Council for Technical Education. The Council replied on 28.06.2010 (page-98) that the verification of certificates issued by different Institutes does not come under the purview of their responsibility. They have suggested that this matter may be enquired from the Institute concerned which had issued the certificate. Further, the authenticity of the Institute may be verified by the State Government itself. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the respondent government thereafter. In the background of the aforesaid factual matrix , the following aspects need to be highlighted:-

(i)

The applicant was sponsored by an agency of the respondent government to under-go computer application training from an Institute where the applicant successfully completed the course and obtained the certificate. This is applicable to the applicant in OA-2638/2011.

(ii)

The applicants in OA-2641/2011, OA-2645/2011, OA-2650/2011 had obtained Masters Degree in Library and Information Science and the applicant in OA-2638/2011 had not only obtained Masters Degree in Library and Information Science but also in Arts and the applicant in OA-2958/2011 had also obtained Master’s Degree in Arts. This issue of equivalence was taken into consideration by the Committee set up to consider the cases of the applicant and the others and the Committee after comparing the syllabus of BA and MA degrees in Library and Information Science specifically recommended that the education requirement could be relaxed in terms of Notes-1 & 2 of the relevant RRs.

(iii)

There is no system of according recognition to Institutes which are giving certificates relating to computer application; neither the State Government has so far come out with such a list of recognized Institutes.

(iv)

In this context, the observations of the Hon’ble High Court as well as this Tribunal on the subject of obtaining certificates from non-recognized Institutes acquire significance.

(v)

The RRs themselves provide for grant of such relaxation in case of candidates who are otherwise well qualified, more so in respect of candidates who belong to reserved category of SC/ST.

(vi)

All the candidates had fairly high position in the merit list.

(vii)

Although the respondent Commission had rejected the recommendation of the Committee for according relaxation in favour of the applicants, earlier they had recommended the cases of the applicants to the respondent Government for appointment subject to scrutiny of their eligibility in terms of RRs. Since the Rules provide for grant of such relaxation and the Committee set up by the respondent Government had after taking into consideration all facts including the curriculum studied by the applicants either at the Bachelor or Master’s degree level in the subject to Library and Information Science made a specific recommendation, the final call in the matter should be taken by the respondent Government.

(viii)

The applicants in OA No. 2641/2011 and OA No. 2645/2011 had submitted their experience for 2 years 8 months and 2 years 7 months respectively as Library Area Coordinator from Meri Saheli Society. As such, their cases, it is claimed, are covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Barkhas case (supra).

9.

Taking these facts into consideration the order dated 28.07.2011 of the respondents is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent government to take a final view about the eligibility of the applicants in respect of the post for which they had applied and otherwise selected.

10.

The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to re-examine the issue in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraph and take a final decision on the eligibility of the candidates keeping in view the provisions of the RRs, the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No. 1996/2004 and this Tribunal in OA-1388/2010 and the factors highlighted in the preceding paragraph.

“….The petitioner, despite repeatedly being questioned as to what it meant by “recognized Institute” in respect of one year certificate in computer application, is not able to give any satisfactory answer to the Court. Since the petitioner is the author of the said advertisement and the stipulation contained therein, it was for the petitioner to be clear in its mind as to what is meant by said expression. Only the petitioner could have thrown light on the requirement that it expected the candidates to satisfy.

The submission of the petitioner is that since the petitioner DSSSB is only the recruiting agency, whereas the employer/user department is the Directorate of Education, a query was raised upon the said user department. The user department has responded by the letter dated 19.01.2016 placed on record along with the additional affidavit wherein it is stated that “as per RRs, one year certificate in computer application is required from a Recgonized Institute which can be recognized by Govt. of India/State Govt./UT Govt. No Registered Institute is equivalent to recognized Institute.”

No statute, rule or instruction or even direction has been placed on record wherein any institution running the one year certificate in computer application course is obligated to obtain recognition from the Government of India/Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner has not even placed on record, any such scheme wherein such recognition may be granted. It is, therefore, clear to us that the aforesaid stipulation of certificate from “recognized institute” is completely vague. Pertinently, despite the decision of the Tribunal on 09.01.2012 inter alia in OA No.2368/2011 bringing the same position to the notice of the petitioner and the user department, the petitioner continued to prescribe the same stipulation in the advertisement in question. It appears to us that while issuing the advertisement in question, there was a complete lack of application of mind on the part of the petitioner as well as the user department. Consequently, the stand taken by the petitioner as well as the user department that the respondent did not meet the requirement of the Recruitment Rules in respect of her certificate of one year course in computer application is unsustainable.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find absolutely no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly, disposed.”