Thahirabi P. vs The Administrator, Union Territory Of Lakshadweep & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -

The applicants in the OAs responded to an employment notice dated 11.12.2018 issued by the Lakshadweep Administration, Directorate of Education, inviting applications for filling up several posts under the Lakshadweep Education Department, inter alia, 4 posts of Primary School Teachers (Hindi). Aggrieved by the rejection of their applications and selection of other candidates, both the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking reliefs. Since common sets of facts arise in the Original Applications and common contentions are set by both the applicants they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

Documents will be referred to in the order in which they are marked in OA No. 453 of 2019.

Lakshadweep administration had framed Recruitment Rules, 2018 under the instructions of National Council for Teacher Education by notification dated 28.6.2018. A copy of the relevant portion of it in Schedule 1 is produced as Annexure A7. By virtue of the above Recruitment Rules, the educational and other qualification are prescribed in clause 8 as follows:

The method of recruitment was provided in clause 11 as follows:

National Council of Teacher Education in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act has fixed the minimum qualification required for a person to be eligible for appointment as Teacher in classes I to V and classes VI to VIII. The true copies of the notifications dated 29.7.2011 and 23.8.2010 were produced and marked as Annexures A4 and A5. The minimum qualification as per the notification is as follows:

By Annexure A6 notification an amendment was made which stated that in para 1 in sub-para (i), in clause (a) after the words and brackets “Graduation and two-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), the following shall be inserted namely:

Annexure A10 is the notification dated 11.12.2008 which clearly showed that 4 posts of the Primary School Teachers (Hindi) were proposed to be filled up. Both the applicants responded claiming themselves to be qualified. Applicant in OA No. 453 of 2019 responded to the posts both under Primary School Teacher (Hindi) classes I to V and Primary School Teachers (Hindi) classes VI to VIII. The applicant in OA No. 804 of 2019 responded to the post of Primary School Teacher (Hindi) classes I to V only. A check list dated 19.2.2019 for the post of PST (Hindi) classes I to V was published. Another list of Primary School Teacher (Hindi) for classes VI to VII were published. In both the lists, the applicant in OA No. 453 of 2019 figured whereas in the list of Primary School Teacher (Hindi) for classes I to V, the applicant in OA No. 804 of 2019 figured.

The case of the applicant in OA No. 453 of 2019 as against the preliminary check list was that the candidate at serial No. 2 in the check list for classes I to V by name Zeenathunesa Beegum P.M., who is the 3^rd respondent in the OA, was not qualified. It was stated that in the check list, in the remarks column, as against the name of Zeenathunesa Beegum P.M. it was indicated as follows:

Alleging that the said candidate was not qualified and that inclusion of her name in the preliminary list of qualified persons was wrong, Annexure A2 representation was submitted.

On the other hand, the case of the applicant in OA No. 804 of 2019 was that one Rassak U.C at serial No. 3 did not fulfil the condition. Hence, a representation dated 26.2.2019 raising objection regarding his qualification and inclusion in the list was submitted.

A final check list dated 21.6.2019 was published, a copy of which was produced as Annexure A13. However, in the final check list the name of the applicant in OA No. 453 of 2019 was omitted against the candidates in 4 posts of Primary School Teacher (Hindi) classes I to V whereas she was included in the list for PST (Hindi) for classes VI to VIII. The application of the applicant in OA No. 804 of 2019 was rejected on the ground that the candidate was not qualified to attend CTET paper-I since she had not qualified in CTET paper-II. Hence, her application was liable to be rejected.

Challenging the rejection of the applications of the applicants herein and inclusion of other persons, whom they claim to be disqualified, the OAs have been filed.

In OA No. 453 of 2019, the applicant challenged the selection process on three specific grounds. The 1^st ground was the non-inclusion of the applicant in Annexure A13 final list in so far as it related to classes I to V. It was contended that the rejection of the application of the applicant as against both the groups of classes I to V and classes VI to VIII was illegal. She claimed herself to be qualified to be considered for both the posts. The 2^nd ground was that inclusion of Zeenathuneesa Beegum P.M., (3^rd respondent) was improper and that she was disqualified. The 3^rd ground was that it was proposed to fill up 2 vacancies for the post of PST (Hindi) in classes I to V and 2 vacancies for PST (Hindi) for classes VI to VIII which militated against the Quota Rule in the Recruitment Rule prescribing a ratio of 60:40.

On the other hand, the applicant in OA No. 804 of 2019 attacked the selection process on the ground that the rejection of her application as against the PST (Hindi) classes I to V was illegal and that the proposed proposal to fill up 2 vacancies for the post of PST (Hindi) classes I to V against 2 vacancies was contrary to the Quota Rule in the Recruitment Rule for filing up the vacancies at the ratio of 60:40.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

Regarding the non-inclusion of the applicant in OA No. 453 of 2019 in Annexure A13 final check list dated 21.6.2019, the learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to Annexure A13 which is in two parts. The first part shows that the 4^th and 3^rd respondent were ranked respectively as 1^st and 2^nd in the first part. In the second part of the rejected list of PST (Hindi) classes I to V selection process, the name of the applicant is not seen included. However, she is seen included in the reject list of classes VI to VIII. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the applicant ought to have been included in the select list of classes I to V. It was contended that the applicant was neither included in the select list nor in the reject list. Annexure R1(a) is the representation submitted by the applicant. However, it is pertinent to note that in Annexure R1(a), the applicant had only an objection regarding the inclusion of one Rassak U.C in the list. It was stated in the reply statement that the said objection was found to be correct and excluded. All the other contentions now seen set up in the OA were not set up in Annexure R1(a) representation.

Respondents in their reply statement had indicated that the name of the applicant was not included in the reject list of the first part of Annexure A13 by mistake and pursuant to the representation, the mistake was corrected and Annexure A29 revised list dated 19.7.2019 was issued. The applicant is seen included in the reject list in Annexure A29. Hence, that limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant to the extent of non-inclusion in the reject list for PST (Hindi) classes I to V cannot survive.

Regarding the contention of the applicant that the third respondent was not qualified to be selected, the stand of the respondent nos.1 and 2 who are the official respondents was that she had obtained a Diploma in Hindi Teaching conducted by the Government of Kerala. Hence she had the requisite qualification; both for Hindi Teaching at Primary level and for appearing in the CTET Examination. She had also obtained her B.A Degree. She had passed Hindi Vidwan/Visharada course as well. Records indicate that the Verification Committee had verified all the certificates produced by her and found her eligible as per the Recruitment Rules as well as the CTET norms.

The third respondent in her separate reply statement had clarified that she had obtained BA in Hindi in 2012. She had also qualified CTET during the years 2014, 2015 and 2016. The copy of the Degree certificate in B.A (Hindi) was produced as Annexure R3(a). It is seen that by Annexure R3(b) GO No. 49/2013/G.Edn dated 11.2.2013 issued by the State of Kerala, Diploma Course undertaken by a person was treated as equivalent to B.Ed. courses offered by the Universities in Kerala. By virtue of Annexure R3(b) it is evident that the third respondent is qualified. Consequently, the contention of the applicant that the 3^rd respondent was not even eligible to apply for the CTET examination is also to be rejected.

As per Annexure A7, a candidate shall have passed CTET and shall possess any of the educational qualifications prescribed in serial No. 8 therein. The third respondent had passed CTET and possessed 50% marks in senior secondary examination and passed Hindi Praveen and Visharada Course. Consequently, it is only to be held that the 3^rd respondent was fully qualified to apply for the post of Primary Hindi Teacher.

It is evident from records that clarification was sought by the Administration at the time of publication of Annexure A11 checklist requiring the applicant to furnish proof to substantiate whether her Diploma in Hindi Teaching was sufficient qualification to appear for CTET examination. Accordingly, she had submitted Annexure R3 representation dated 24.2.2019, clarifying that as per NCTE regulations in force at the time of her obtaining Diploma in Hindi Teaching, relaxation was given for courses having duration of one year, provided the same was completed before 2005. Annexure R3(b) was also pointed out to the official respondents. It seems that the respondents were satisfied, justifiably, based on records.

In the light of the above, the contention of the applicant that the respondent did not have the qualification for appointment as Primary School Teacher (Hindi) is not substantiated. As evident from Annexures A4 and A5, respondent had passed Senior Secondary examination with 45% of marks and had a Diploma in Elementary Education, in accordance with NCTE Regulation 2002 for qualifying as Teacher in Hindi, for classes I to V. She also possessed 50% marks and Diploma in Elementary Education which was treated as B.Ed by virtue of Annexure R3(b).

On the other hand, the specific contention of the official respondent as well as the private respondent was that the applicant herself was not qualified. According to the applicant, she had passed CTET in terms of Annexure A15 guidelines. However, as per clause 5.1 of Annexure A-15, a person who has acquired the academic and professional qualification specified in NCTE notification dated 23.8.2010 shall be eligible for appearing in CTET. Annexure A5 notification prescribed the essential qualification which included a diploma in Elementary Education. As per Annexure A5 read with Annexure A15, applicant was not qualified to attend Paper I of CTET. The applicant cannot hence claim the benefit of Annexure A9 because the amendment was brought in the year 2018, whereas the applicant attended CTET much prior to that, when according to her, Annexure A15 and in turn Annexure A5, were in force. Hence, the official respondents rightly rejected her application.

One of the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment as per Recruitment Rules dated 2.9.2014 was a pass in Hindi Vidwan/Madhyama Visharadh/Praveen Courses or any other equivalent recognised courses that may recognised to Central/State board/ Universities/Institutions. However, clarifications at Clause 8 in the form of a note prescribed that a Diploma/Degree course in Teacher Education recognised by NCTE alone shall be considered. Hence, the claim of the applicant that a lesser qualification than what was stipulated by the NCTE has been prescribed by the Administration is only to be rejected as claimed by the respondent.

The third respondent in their reply statement also pointed out that the applicant herself was not qualified. According to them, as per Annexures A4 and A5, she was not qualified for teaching in classes I to V since graduation with B.Ed was introduced as a main qualification only in the year 2018. Evidently, the applicant undertook her CTET examination in the year 2016. At that point of time, amendment in issue was not in existence and she was not qualified to undertake the examination in so far as classes I to V was concerned. Consequently, her name was rightly rejected by the official respondents.

In the light of the above conclusions, it is only to be held that applicant in O.A No. 453/2019 is not entitled to succeed and her application was rightly rejected by respondent nos.1 & 2. Her contentions challenging the qualifications of respondent no. 3 also does not survive.

Coming to OA No.804/2019, several contentions were advanced by the applicant. According to the official respondents Annexure A5 was only a list of candidates narrating their scores. The serial number of the candidates in that list did not indicate their ranks according to their score. The serial numbers have been randomly given. According to the official respondents, applicant’s qualification was found to be insufficient because she was possessing only one year diploma. As per the eligibility criteria, two years diploma course was required for appearing in CTET. As the applicant did not possess the required qualification for attending CTET for classes I to V, she was held to be not qualified for that category. It is clear that she was not qualified to be considered for a post, since she was not having two years diploma course or any other course which was described as equivalent to attend CTET. CBSE has made it clear that it is for the employer concerned to verify the basic qualification of a candidates, despite having qualified for CTET. Without fulfilling the basic requirements, she cannot be considered for appointment as prayed for to the post of PST. Two years diploma is an essential qualification prescribed for participating in CTET and the applicant having not satisfied it, her name was rightly included in the reject list for the post of PST (Hindi). There is nothing to show that Visharad is an equivalent qualification to the two years diploma course. Two vacancies were there for classes I to V and hence the respondents has published list of two candidates who are eligible to get appointment to the post of PST (Hindi).

Having considered this, it is only to be held that both the applicants are not qualified to be included to be appointed as PST (Hindi) and their applications were rightly rejected. Since they are not qualified, they are not entitled to challenge the distribution of vacancies that it was not in accordance with 60:40 ratio as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules.

In the light of the above, both the OAs fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Annexure A1 – True copy of the certificate of third respondent in Rashtrabhasha Visharad.

Annexure A2 – True copy of the certificate of third respondent in Rashtrabhasha Praveen.

Annexure A3 – True copy of the certificate of third respondent diploma examination in Hindi teaching.

Annexure A4 – True copy of the notification F. No. 61-1/2011/NCTE(N&S) dated 29.7.2011.

Annexure A5 – True copy of the notification F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S) dated 23.8.2010.

Annexure A6 – True copy of the notification F. No. NCTE-Regl012/16/2018 dated 28.6.2018.

Annexure A7 – True copy of the Recruitment Rule of Primary School Teacher (Hindi) Lakshadweep Administration.

Annexure A8 – True copy of the guidelines of CBSE.

Annexure A9 – True copy of the amendment in eligibility criteria.

Annexure A10 – True copy of the employment notice F. No. 6/8/2018.Edn/Estt dated 11.12.2018.

Annexure A11 – True copy of the check list F. No. 6/9/2018-Edn/Estt dated 19.2.2019.

Annexure A12 – True copy of the representation dated 16.4.2019.

Annexure A13 – True copy of the check list F. No. 6/9/2018-Edn/Estt dated 21.6.2019.

Annexure A14 – True copy of the representation dated 24.6.2019.

Annexure A15 – True copy of the guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

Annexure A16 – True copy of the Higher Secondary Certifiate dated 28.5.2004.

Annexure A17 – True copy of the mark list pass Rastrabhasha Praveen Poorvardh from Hindi Prachar Sabha dated 20.10.2012.

Annexure A18 – True copy of the mark list pass Rastrabhasha Praveen Uttarardh from Hindi Prachar Sabha dated 22.3.2013.

Annexure A19 – True copy of the degree certificate of Rastrabhasha Praveen issued by Dhakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha dated 10.2.2015.

Annexure A20 – True copy of the degree certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University dated 11.8.2008.

Annexure A21 – True copy of the Bed certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University dated 12.10.2009.

Annexure A22 – True copy of the MA degree certificate issued by the university of Madras dated 5.3.2011.

Annexure A23 – True copy of the CTET certificate dated 23.5.2016 (aper I and Paper II).

Annexure A24 – True copy of the NCET Regulation 2014 dated 12.11.2014.

Annexure A25 – True extract copy of Act 73 of 1993.

Annexure A26 – True copy of the Act 35 of 2009.

Annexure A27 – True copy of the notification F. No. 9-2/2001/NCTE 73-76 dated 3.9.2001 issued by NCTE.

Annexure A28 – True copy of the information under RTI Act F. No. SRC/NCTE/RTI/Gen/2015/72202 dated 4.8.2015 issued by Public Information Officer.

Annexure A29 – True copy of the revised list F. No. 6/9/2018-Edn/Estt dated 19.7.2019.

Annexure R1(a)–True copy of the representation dated 22.2.2019 submitted by the applicant to the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure R3(a) –True copy of the degree of this respondent in BA Hindi.

Annexure R3(b)–True copy of GO(Ms) No. 49/2013/G.Edn dated 11.02.2013.

Annexure R3(c) –True English translation of GO(Ms) No. 49/2013/G.Edn dated 11.2.2013.

Annexure R3(d) –True copy of representation dated 24.2.2019 preferred by this respondent to the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A1 – True copy of notice F. No. 6/9/2018-Edn/Estt dated 21.6.2019 issued by 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A2 – True copy of office memorandum F. No. 6/9/2018-Edn/Estt(1)/1142 dated 19.7.2019 issued by the second respondent.

Annexure A3 – True copy of employment notice F. No. 6/8/20-18-Edn/Estt dated 11.12.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A4 – True copy of the Lakshadweep Gazette Extraordinary Notification Vol.L No. 15, dated 2.9.2014.

Annexure A5 – True copy of the notice F. No. 6/9/2018-Edn/Estt(2) dated 19.2.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A6 – True copy of the representation dated 26.2.2019 by the applicant addressed to the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A7 – True copy of applicant’s representation dated 29.6.2019 addressed to the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A8 series – True copies of the certificates indicating the applicant’s educational qualification, material for consideration for appointment to the post in question.

Annexure R3(A) –True copy of an office order No. F. No. 6/9/2018-Edn/Estt dated 20.11.2019 issued by the Directorate of Education.