AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Since all these OAs are identical in nature, they are disposed of by this common order.
These OAs are filed challenging the advertisements issued by the respondents proposing to select candidates for the posts of TGT (Natural Science) (Female), Assistant Teacher(Primary), TGT (Hindi) (Female), Special Educator Teacher, TGT (Social Science) (Female), TGT (Social Science & English), TGT (Natural Science & Maths), PGT (History) (Female), Physical Education Teacher, PGT (Hindi), TGT (Physical Education Teacher), PGT (Biology) (Male), Assistant Nursery Teacher, PGT (Computer Science), PGT (Sociology) and Guest Teachers, in so far as it stipulated conditions that disentitle the applicants from appearing in the proposed examination for selection. On various dates, interim orders were passed by this Tribunal directing the respondents to permit the applicants to take part in the examination but it was directed that such appearance shall not be treated as adjudication or determination of any rights.
We heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Shri Anuj Aggarwal, Shri Ranjit Sharma, Shri Subodh Kumar Jha, Shri Ajesh Luthra, Shri Rajesh Pratap Singh Raghuvanshi, Shri T.N.Tripathi, Shri Ranjan Tyagi, Shri U. Srivastava, Shri Randhir Kumar, Shri Yashpal Rangi, Shri Trideep Pais and Shri G.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants in respective OAs and Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Additional Standing Counsel and Shri Amit Anand, Shri Kumar Onkareshwar, Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri H.A. Khan, Shri S.N. Verma, Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Jagdish N, learned counsel for respondents at length.
The applicants felt aggrieved by certain conditions incorporated in the advertisement. While, according to them, the conditions cannot be sustained in law, the respondents plead that they have been incorporated on the basis of the relevant provisions of law as well as the adjudication, that has taken place earlier.
The occasion for us to go deep into the issue at this stage would arise if only the results are declared and applicants or some of them come up to the level/zone of selection. It is only with reference to those candidates, who otherwise stand a chance of being selected, that the further particulars or the legality of their claim, can be decided. Pendency of the OA is prone to be an impediment for the entire selection process.
We, therefore, dispose of these OAs directing that:
(a) the respondents shall proceed to declare results of the examination which was held in pursuance of the impugned notification/advertisement.
(b) the interim order passed in these OAs, shall not be construed as conferring eligibility upon them, but the same shall be decided by the respondents separately.
(c) in case the applicants or any of them are found to be in the zone of selection, the respondents shall inform such of them through a notice as to how they are not eligible to participate in the selection process, duly indicating the reasons.
(d) the applicants shall be entitled to submit their explanation/representation putting forward their grievance, within 15 days from the date of receipt of such communication.
(d) further steps shall be taken by the respondents as regards the applicants only after passing a reasoned order, on the basis of the notice and reply, if any.
(e) the verification as indicated shall be undertaken along with the results in the examination.
It shall be open to the applicants to approach the Tribunal, by filing fresh OAs, if their grievance subsists. All the pending MAs also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.