AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
The applicant has filed the present Original Application being aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2023, whereby the offer of appointment and candidature of the applicant to the post of TGT (English) (Female), Post Code 51/21 has been cancelled by the Directorate of Education.
This is second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant approached this Tribunal challenging the cancellation order of 27.06.2023 by filing earlier OA No.2008/2024. The said OA was disposed of on 10.05.2024 with a direction to the respondents to re-look and re-examine the cancellation order by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
On 06.08.2024 the respondents re-examined and again reiterated their earlier decision of cancelling the candidature of the applicant. The facts in brief are that the Vacancy Notice vide advertisement no.03/21 dated 27.05.2021 was published by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, calling for applications for TGT in various subjects. The applicant, under the said Vacancy Notice, had applied for appointment to the post of TGT (English) (Female), Post Code 51/21. She participated in the recruitment exercise and was declared successful. She was also issued an offer of appointment on 06.01.2023. However, the said offer of appointment was cancelled vide order dated 27.06.2023 on the ground that during document verification, certain deficiencies were noted by the user department i.e. Department of Education, that the applicant has not studied English as a subject in two years in Graduation.
The counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant has completed her bachelor's Degree from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of Delhi University. She has annexed with the OA, the Degree Certificate, and the mark sheet of the three years of her Graduation. From the consolidated mark sheet annexed at Annexure A/8 with the Original Application, it is evident that the applicant has studied English language and English (a) as part of semester I and again English (Language) as part of semester III of the Graduation Course. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the education requirement for bachelor's Degree as advertised in the notification is as under:-
“1. A Bachelor's Degree (Honours/Pass) or equivalent from a recognized University having secured 45% marks in aggregate, in two school subjects of which at least one out of the following should have been at the elective level:-
A. English
B. Mathematics
C. Natural/Physical Science
D. Social Science
Note:- Main subjects for (i) TGT (Natural Science/Phy. Science) shall be Physics, Chemistry Biology, Botany and Zoology (ii) Social Science:- History / Political Science/ Economics / Business Studies / Sociology /Geography/ Psychology.
Provided further that the requirement as to minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate at graduation level shall be relaxable in case of
(a) Candidates who passes a Post Graduate Qualification in any of the teaching subjects listed above.
(b) Belonging to SC/ST
(c) Physically handicapped candidates
Degree/Diploma in Training Education.
Working knowledge of Hindi
Should have qualified CTET from CBSE.
N.B:-"The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RR's for atleast 02 years during the Graduation course. The elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different Universities.”
He submitted that the applicant has studied the English subject both in semester I and semester III. Semester I is part of the curriculum of 1st year of Graduation and semester III is part of curriculum of 2nd year of Graduation. Meaning thereby that the applicant has studied the said language in 1st year and 2nd year of the graduation course. Thus she fulfils the requirement of the RRs.
The respondents have mistakenly cancelled the candidature merely for the reason that applicant has studied English in semester I and semester III alone.
He also stated that on the directions of the Tribunal in the first round, the respondents have re-examined the case of the applicant. However, the respondents have ignored the representations and have rejected the candidature in a pre-determined and biased manner.
On issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and are contesting the OA.
Counsel for the respondents, relying upon para 4.17 of the reply affidavit, stated that the respondents had constituted an Expert Committee to examine the eligibility of the candidates in terms of the RRs. The Expert Committee examined the candidate’s acquired qualification through dossier/certificates and unanimously in their view held that as per RR’s English must be studied for two years/four semesters and given their observation that the candidate cannot be considered for the post TGT (English) (Female) as the candidate studied English in semester I and III only and not for two years in Graduation (B.Com.). Therefore, the Director of Education, being the competent authority, accepted the recommendation of the Expert Committee and further ordered to cancel the candidature of the applicant. Thus, it was stated that respondents have taken all care to consider the candidature of the applicant in an unbiased and fair manner. Based on the Expert Committee decision, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, finally rejecting the candidature.
We have perused the documents on record and the pleadings. It would be pertinent to note that the Expert Committee’s report has not been placed before us.
From the reply affidavit it is evident that the Expert Committee has considered the dossier/certificate of the applicant only. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that the Expert Committee has gone into the course contents of the English subject taught by the University of Delhi.
The requirement of the RRs is that concerned subject should be taught in the two years of Graduation. The applicant has studied the subject in the Ist and IIIrd semester. First semester falls in the Ist year and the IIIrd semester is part of the 2nd year of Graduation. Nowhere the Rules say that the concerned subject is required to be studied in four semesters out of the six semesters of Graduation. All it says is that the subject should be studied in two years out of three years. The applicant has completed her Graduation from a respectable and renowned University i.e. Delhi University. The applicant has competed in open market and has been declared successful and also offered appointment. Besides the above objection, there is no other objection to the appointment of the applicant. It is a settled law that where the rules are vague, they should be read and interpreted in a manner which is commonly understood. It is further settled law that the rules wherever are vague should be interpreted with the aim to determine the legislative intent and to ensure a fair and just application. If the words are clear and unambiguous, the Court should give effect to natural meaning of the words. The basic rule of interpretation is a literal meaning of the word.
In the RRs it has been stated that subject should be studied in any of the two years of graduation. Since the applicant has studied English in first year and second year of graduation, she cannot be stated to have not studied the subject two years of the graduation.
In view of the above applicant is declared eligible as per RR’s.
Therefore, OA is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-DOE is directed to consider the case of the applicant and if found otherwise fit, to offer the appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.