AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
The applicant by way of present Original Application seeks to assail rejection notice dated 20.05.2016 issued by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), whereby her candidature for the post of TGT (Maths) in Directorate of Education was rejected after assigning the reason “B.Ed after cut off date”.
The DSSSB, i.e. Respondent No.2 issued an Advertisement No.02/2012 in the Employment News Weekly dated 12-18th May, 2016 whereby applications were invited for eligible candidates for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). The essential qualifications for the said post are “Degree/Diploma in Training Education or SAV certificate.” The respondent no.2 issued admit card to the applicant having Roll No.47000641.The applicant has participated in the said examination. The applicant successfully cleared the written test conducted by the respondent no.2 on 28.12.2014 and thereafter a cut off list was prepared by respondent no.1 in which for TGT (Maths) Female Post Code 111/12 the cut off marks was 128.25 for unreserved category. However, her candidature was rejected by Rejection Notice No.18 dated 20.05.2016 saying that “her B.Ed Degree is after the cut off date”.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on clause (ii) of the essential qualification as per which Degree/Diploma in Training Education is sufficient. He submitted that the applicant has obtained Diploma in Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) on 26.11.2008 which is before the cut-off date. He therefore submits that in terms of the essential qualification as prescribed in the RRs and notified by the advertisement, the applicant ought to have been considered for the said post.
Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and they are contesting the OA.
The respondents have stated that the applicant has B.Ed Degree, however, her B.Ed Degee was acquired by her after the cut off date. They further submitted that as per the NCTE notification dated 4th September, 2001, minimum qualification for Secondary/High School Teachers, i.e. TGTs has been prescribed as Graduate with Bachelor of Education or its equivalent. Hence, the candidates, who have obtained Diploma in Elementary Teacher Training from DIET, are not eligible for the post of TGT/TGT /(MIL). Accordingly, Bachelor of Education has been prescribed as an essential minimum qualification for the post of TGT/TGT/(MIL). Since the applicant did not acquire the B.Ed. Degree before the crucial date of receipt of application, her candidature was rejected for the post of TGT (Maths) Post Code 111/12. Therefore, the candidature of the applicant has been rightly rejected.
We have considered the rival submissions on behalf of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the documents on record.
The applicant was an aspirant for the post of TGT (Maths). TGT teacher is essential to teach the students upto class IX. No doubt, the essential qualifications notified in advertisement say Degree or Diploma in Teacher Education however the word “Diploma” in teacher education cannot be read to mean a Diploma in Elementary Teacher Education. Reading the Diploma in teacher education as Diploma in Elementary teacher education would render the RR’s redundant. The applicant’s diploma in elementary teacher education is meant only for elementary school training/ teaching. The said diploma cannot be held valid for the purpose of appointment as a TGT.
There is no dispute that the B.Ed degree has been obtained after the cut off date.
On the point of law, these kind of issues are no longer res integra but already decided as per the ratio given in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifuduallah Khan & Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85.
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation a in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the b advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list."
It is a well settled principle in law and service jurisprudence that the dates and timelines in competitive examinations for Government recruitment are rigorous and sacrosanct. The rigid cut off dates cannot be compromised and become flexible and loose. These dates, if compromised, can open a Pandora’s Box and a flood gate of litigations by other candidates who adhered to the dates and timelines mentioned in the recruitment advertisement. In case of open recruitment like the present one, the cut off date is published and thousand of candidates, who compete from the open market for the said post, apply in terms of the cut off date. Since the applicant was not qualified on the cut off date inspite of her achieving merit position, her candidature has been rightly rejected.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to this issue, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in this case clearly lies with the respondents. The instant OA lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.