Kamlesh vs D.S.S.S.B. and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—This order shall dispose of WP (C) Nos. 4149/2008, 4327/2002, 4046/2008, 7055/2005, 518/2006, 10561/2006, 4937/2008 and 5090/2008.

The common question which arise in these petitions are that as to whether these petitioners fulfill the required criteria of qualifying English/Hindi as elective subject in graduation. All these petitioners duly possess the qualification of graduation and in petition Nos. 4149/2008, 5090/2008, 4046/2008, 4937/2008 Hindi was one of the main subjects of the petitioners in the graduation while in WP (C) Nos. 4327/2002, 7055/2005, 10561/2006 and 518/2006 English was one of the main subjects. Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the corrigendum dated 13.3.2000 issued by the Directorate of Education certifying that the elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different Universities. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have rejected the applications of the petitioners only on the short ground that these petitioners were not found eligible on the ground that they do not fulfill the criteria of English/Hindi as an elective subject in the graduation level. Counsel for the petitioner thus urges that corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000 clarified that the elective word may also include the main subject and all the petitioners have qualified English/Hindi as one of the main subjects at the graduation level, therefore, the applications of the petitioners for their appointment to the post of TGT (English/Hindi) could not have been rejected. Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Saroj Rana and Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. WP (C) No. 2576/2002 wherein a similar question arose and this Court has threadbare gone into the said issue and reached to the conclusion that once the candidates have studied English/Hindi as one of their main subjects in all the three years carrying 100 marks each, the same would meet the requirement of the recruitment rules prescribed for appointment to the post of TGT (English/Hindi). Counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this Court one recommendation letter of appointment dated 17.12.2008 issued by the respondent Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board in the case of Saroj Rana.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Since the issue is no more res integra, therefore, let the respondents appoint all these petitioners to the respective post of TGT (English/Hindi), if they are otherwise found eligible and selected on their own merits. The seniority of these petitioners shall be decided by the respondents on the basis of their merit position in the selected list. The petitioners shall not be entitled to any salary for the period prior to the date of their joining the service of the respondents on the principle of ''no work no pay''. In case they were found selected based on their merit and eligibility, the notional seniority shall be given to them as per the merit and in accordance with the applicable rules. The respondents shall carry out the aforesaid directions within a period of one month from the date of this order.

With these directions these petitions are disposed of.

Dasti.