UOI and Others vs Ram Singh and Another

Acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri

Pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1990 for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT), the respondent No. 1 also applied for that post and appeared in the test. As per the advertisement issued, writer examination of two and a half hours duration was to be held comprising of General Knowledge, Teaching Aptitude and Subject Competence. For these three components, maximum marks of 10, 25 and 50 were assigned respectively. The respondent was working as Librarian. On the basis of test held, the Director of Education prepared the merit list. In addition to the marks obtained by the candidates on the basis of aforesaid examination the marks were also awarded for experience as well as teachers ward. The respondent was assigned 3.5 marks for teaching experience. However, later on these marks were deducted/deleted on the ground that the respondent was only a Librarian. The respondent challenged the non-appointment by filing OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal (''CAT'' in short) in the year 1992 on two grounds, viz.:

1) As per the advertisement, selection process comprised only of the written test and this advertisement, nowhere stipulated marks for teaching experience or teachers ward would be awarded, Therefore, the merit list should have been prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in the written test.

2) It was also contended that in any case, the respondent had teaching experience inasmuch as a Librarian he had been teaching the students.

The CAT has accepted the first contention and on that basis, direction was given to the petitioner to give appointment to the respondent herein. For this reason, CAT did not go into the second contention, as that was not required because of the view taken by the CAT on the first issue.

When this matter came up for hearing on 01.4.2011, arguments were hoard on the first ground noted above, which were accepted by the CAT resulting into passing of the orders in favour of the respondent herein. However, we prima facie find that the order of the CAT on this aspect is erroneous. This view was taken in the following manner:

After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the prima facie view that marks for teaching experience and teachers ware could hove been given in the selection process. These observations of ours are based on the records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for our perusal, which would indicate that just before the advertisement given, conscious decision was taken to make the selection on the basis of examination of 85 marks, 10 marks experience on the basis of certificate duly countersigned and 05 marks for the teachers ward may be allowed. Admittedly, there were no statutory rules prescribing the mode of selection and administrative decision which was taken as stipulated above would cover the field.

In these circumstances, we could have set aside the order and referred the matter back to the CAT for afresh consideration, insofar as second ground advanced by the respondent is concerned, viz., the respondent: wanted marks on the basis of teaching experience as well, on the plea that as a Librarian he had been teaching the students. However, the counsel for the parties agreed that since. It is an old matter, this issue be decided by this Court itself.

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions of counsel for both the parties, we permitted the parties to file the additional affidavits. We may note that by that time the respondent had already filed affidavits dated 14.5.2010 along with documents on the basis of which he was having teaching experience as well. The petitioner was permitted to file reply thereto. The petitioner thereafter filed its reply vide affidavit dated 06.7.2011. The respondent has filed rejoinder thereto on 19.9.2011.

We have heard the counsel for the parties as pointed out above. We may record at the outset that 10 marks were assigned for teaching experience. The respondent was granted 3.5 marks for the teaching experience earlier which were later on deducted on the ground that he does not have any teaching experience. We may also record that if those 3.5 marks are given to the respondent, then he stands selected for the post. It is only after the deduction of these marks that the respondent was treated as eligible for the post of PGT. In this backdrop, we now proceed to determine the question.

In the reply affidavit dated 06.7.2011 filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that the post or Librarian was not a teaching post at that point of time. For this post, B.Ed. degree is not required, whereas in the case of PGT or TGT, B.Ed. is one of the essential qualifications. The Librarians were treated similar to TGT only for the purpose of SCALES and nothing more. It is also submitted that the job of the Librarian is to maintain books in the library issue the books to the students during his library period or even for home and the librarian was not performing any teaching job as the same was not assigned to any Librarian, Though it is accepted in the Time Table, which is annexed by the respondent, which is an affidavit, library class is mentioned, explanation furnished by the petitioner in that behalf is that in normal course, every class has one or two library class in a week during which period, the students go to the library to read or consult book, etc. and the Librarian never teaches the student when they come to the library, he only assists student in providing relevant books to the students. It is also submitted that initially the respondent was given 3.5 marks on provisional basis, but at the time of verification of documents, he could not substantiate his teaching experience with any documents. Thus the weightage of marks awarded for teaching experience was withdrawn.

The aforesaid explanation furnished by the petitioner is not convincing. We may record here that though in the affidavit, general duties of a Librarian are mentioned, the case of the respondent is not specifically dealt with. First of all, we may mention that the respondent possesses B.Ed. degree. Further, even in the application form filled by the respondent before writing the examination, the respondent was awarded marks of teaching experience. This was because of the reasons that it was found that the respondent, in fact, had teaching experience. It would be worthwhile to mention that the respondent had been getting teaching allowance at that point of time. He had also furnished a letter of teaching experience as required by the petitioner at the time of verification of the documents. Thus insofar the respondent is concerned, not only he was having B.Ed. qualification, he, in fact, was teaching the students for which a Certificate was issued by the Deputy Education Officer-III and he was even given the teaching allowance. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent did not have teaching experience.

We are, thus, of the opinion that he was rightly awarded the teaching marks, which were thereafter wrongfully deleted. It would be of interest at this point that the Department has not declared the Librarian as teaching post, though vide orders/letter dated 21.1.2011 issued by Addl. Director of Education (Admn.), the post of Librarian in Government schools of Directorate of Education, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi is declared as teaching post for all with immediate effect. This aspect making Librarian equivalent with the teacher coupled with the fact that the respondent had teaching experience all along, fortifies our view that he could not have been deprived of the marks under the head "teaching experience". In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the selection of the respondent made by the petitioner to the post of PGT provisionally in the first instance was rightly done and illegality occurred in cancelling his appointment. We, thus, sustain the order of the CAT though for different grounds. As a result, this writ petition is dismissed.