The court mandated that the qualifications for the post of TGT (Computer Science) be reassessed, particularly the equivalency of MCA and 'A' level courses, to ensure fair administrative procedure.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):--This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the tribunal') in O.A.No.2652/2017.

2. The petitioners before us, presently, are aggrieved by the fact that, they have not been considered for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Computer Science) (Post Code 192/14) [hereafter referred as "TGT (Computer Science)"].

2.1 We may also note that, apart from the official respondents, some private respondents are also arrayed as parties to the instant petition. While Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate, represents the petitioners, Ms. Sangita Rai, Advocate, represents some of the private respondents. The private respondents, we are told, are arrayed as respondent nos.4 to 22 in the writ petition.

3. It would also be relevant to note that, some of the private respondents had approached this court on an earlier occasion, which resulted in the Division Bench of this court passing a judgment, on 21.12.2018. This judgment was rendered in W.P.(C.) No.13885/2018, titled Dayanand & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

3.1. Interestingly, Ms. Rai represented the petitioners, at that stage. Via the aforesaid petition, challenge had been laid to the tribunal's order dated 12.10.2018. The court, after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the said order of the tribunal and remanded the case to the tribunal for a fresh hearing.

3.2. The rationale provided by the Division Bench, vide its judgment dated 21.12.2018, is adverted to in paragraph 3. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:

"3. Mr. Luthra has sought to justify the findings returned by the Tribunal by relying upon inter alia on the judgment of the Anamika Shakla v. State of Madhya Pradesh in WA No. 917/2016 decided on 14.12.2016. He also submits that the MCA Degree obtained by the respondents is equivalent to graduation in any subject with `A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information and Communication and Technology, Government of India, which is also one of the qualifications prescribed. In our view, the Tribunal should have undertaken a more detailed and in- depth examination of this particular issue i.e. as to whether the two year degree of MCA obtained after graduation in any subject, could be considered to be a higher qualification, or at par., with the three year BCA degree, and whether the attainment of MCA qualification subsumes within it the qualification of BCA. The views of the Governing Councils such as AICTE, Association of Indian Universities, who are concerned with the field of Computer Education, should also have been called for."

4. Mr. Agarwal has drawn our attention to the essential qualification, provided in the relevant recruitment rules [in short "RRs"] for being considered for appointment to the subject post. It would be relevant, therefore, to allude to that part of the RRs, which concerns essential qualifications:

"Essential Qualification-

1. Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA) from a recognized University

OR

Graduation in Computer Science from a recognised University (Provided that the Computer Science subject must be studied in all years as main subject)

OR

B.E./B.Tech. (Computer Science/Information Technology) from a recognised University

OR

Graduation in any subject and `A' level course from DOEACC, Ministry of Information & Communication and Technology, Govt. of India."

4.1. Mr. Agarwal has argued, and in our view, quite correctly, that, the tribunal has not examined the issue as to, whether or not the petitioners have qualifications which are equivalent to the followin