The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting educational qualifications fairly and in accordance with relevant UGC clarifications, ensuring the rights of candidates to appointment based on merit.

Rekha Palli, J.

C.M. No. 24308/2019

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5543/2019 & & C.M. No. 24309/2019

1. Issue Notice.

2. Ms. Ahlawat accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that as the entire pleadings before the Tribunal have been filed along with the present petition, she does not propose to file any reply. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal.

3. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi ('Tribunal') dismissing O.A. No. 2788/2017 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also assails the order dated 18.03.2019 whereby the Tribunal rejected her Review Application No. 77/2019 seeking review of the order dated 26.02.2019.

4. The aforesaid Original Application (OA) had been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her candidature for the post of Domestic Science Teacher (T.G.T.) post Code 67/10, as per the merit list of Schedule Caste (SC) candidates dated 24.06.2016. The petitioner, who belongs to the SC community as notified by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), had completed her B.A. (Distant Mode Education) from the University of Delhi in the year 2004. Simultaneously, the petitioner was also pursuing a two year Diploma course in Home Science from the Board of Technical Education, Lucknow (U.P.) as a regular student. Thus, in 2005, she had obtained both her B.A. degree through correspondence mode as also her Diploma certificate through the regular mode.

5. Pursuant to a requisition made by the Directorate of Education, GNCTD/respondent no.2, the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board/respondent no.3 issued an advertisement in the year 2010 inviting applications for the post of Domestic Science Teacher (T.G.T.) with the Post Code 67/10. The petitioner applied for the said post and appeared for the written examination held on 28.12.2014 and the result thereof, was declared on 28.06.2016 in which she was placed at merit position No. 1 in the category of SC candidates. Subsequently, on 11.05.2017, the respondents issued two notices being Result Notice No. 142 and Rejection Notice No. 143; while the first notice enlisted the names of those candidates who were found provisionally eligible for selection to the said post, the second notice contained the names of candidates who were found ineligible for such selection. The name of the petitioner, despite her having obtained merit position No. 1 in the selection process, did not appear in either of these lists.

6. Aggrieved by the non inclusion of her name in either of the two lists, the petitioner filed an RTI application on 15.05.2017 and from the reply thereto, she learnt that her name had been kept pending in order to seek certain clarification about her educational qualifications. After waiting for some time, the petitioner then approached the Tribunal on 10.08.2017 by way of the aforesaid OA. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that she fulfilled all the educational and eligibility conditions, and had been placed at merit position No. 1 in the SC category and, therefore, there was no reason as to why she had not been issued the appointment letter when there was no dispute regarding the validity of her degree or the diploma. In support of her contention, the petitioner had also placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in Nisha Rani v. GNCTD (OA No. 2248/2008) wherein the Tribunal had, in similar circumstances, after considering the clarification issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) that it was permissible for a candidate to simultaneously undergo two courses, i.e., one by regular mode and the other by distance mode, allowed the OA. On the other hand, the respondents, while opposing the OA, contended that the case of the petitioner had been kept pendin