SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Govt. of NCT Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Virender Kumar Choudhary - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9736 of 2018 & CM Appl. 7138 of 2020
Decided On : 19-10-2022




A candidate qualifying for a position under relaxed norms for a reserved category cannot apply for unreserved category vacancies.

Headnote:(A) Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) - Quashing of candidature - The respondent's candidature for TGT (Natural Science) was cancelled for applying under unreserved category despite qualifying CTET under OBC relaxation - Eligibility criteria require candidates to qualify without relaxation for unreserved categories. (Paras 5, 6, 11, 12)

(B) Supreme Court ruling - The Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar has ruled that qualifications obtained through relaxation cannot be considered for general category vacancies. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The respondent applied for TGT post under unreserved category after qualifying CTET with OBC relaxation, leading to cancellation of candidature.

Findings of Court:
The respondent's qualification under relaxed norms for OBC does not render him eligible for unreserved category vacancies.

Issues: Whether a candidate qualified under OBC relaxation can apply for an unreserved category?

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate qualifying through relaxations cannot be deemed eligible for general category vacancies as per Supreme Court precedent, reaffirming the need for equal consideration based on non-relaxed qualifications.

Result: Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. candidature cancellation for non-eligibility (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on eligibility under categories (Para 6 , 7)
3. supreme court ruling on eligibility norms (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. application of relaxed norms disqualifies candidate (Para 11)
5. final order to set aside tribunal ruling (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 21.12.2017 whereby the original application filed by the respondent seeking quashing of order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the petitioner cancelling the candidature of the respondent for the post of TGT (Natural Science) has been allowed.

2. The respondent had applied for the post of TGT (Natural Science) under post code 10/13 under the unreserved category pursuant to an advertisement No.01/13.

3. Petitioner appeared in the written examination and scored high marks and fell within the consideration zone under the unreserved category and was thereafter called for verification of the documents. One of the eligibility conditions for consideration for the relevant post was that the candidate should have qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) conducted by CBSE.

4. At the time of scrutiny of documents, it was found that respondent had scored 83 marks in CTET examination and was declared qualified under the OBC category. Respondent had qualified CTET examination by application of relaxation which was then available under the OBC category of 5% in the qualifying marks. It is an admitted position that respondent had scored marks in CTET less then the qualifying marks prescribed for the unreserved category.

5. On petitioners finding that the respondent had qualified CTET examination by availing the benefit of relaxation under the OBC category, the candidature of the respondent was cancelled as respondent had not qualified under the unreserved category and had applied under the unreserved category.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent having qualified the CTET examination availing the relaxation under the OBC category was ineligible to now apply under the unreserved category. Learned counsel further submits that had respondent not availed of the relaxation available for the OBC category for the CTET Examination, respondent would not have satisfied the eligibility condition and would have been disqualified for consideration for the subject post.

7. It is an admitted position that respondent had availed of the relaxation while obtaining the qualification for CTET. In the absence of the said qualifications, respondent would not be eligible for consideration for the said post. Once the respondent has obtained the eligibility qualification by availing the relaxation under the OBC category, the respondent could not have applied for being considered under the unreserved category.

8. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Govt. (NCT of Delhi) & Ors vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors, (2019) 10 SCC 120 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

    "It is important to keep in mind that the respondents are competing for general category vacancies. All others in this group have obtained their CTET eligibility qualification, securing the normal pass marks without availing any relaxation of pass norms. On the other hand, the respondents despite their lesser marks in the CTET examination, could qualify only because they availed the relaxation benefits as OBC category examinees. Their eligibility qualification is secured under relaxed norms meant for OBC category and therefore we do not think it is proper to consider them to be eligible for the general category vacancies and contention to the contrary is unacceptable."

9. The Supreme Court has in Pradeep Kumar (Supra) held that the candidates who could qualify only because they availed the relaxation benefits of the OBC category examinees and since their eligibility qualification was secured under relaxed norms meant for OBC category it w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top