Identical candidates holding Dip Ed qualifications from 2008 are entitled to age relaxation in recruitment processes, as consistent with judicial precedents supporting equal treatment under the law.

Headnote:(A) Education Act - Recruitment Rules - Age Relaxation for Teacher Recruitment - The court affirms the right to age relaxation for holders of two-year Dip Ed qualifications obtained in 2008, aligning with the precedent set in Sachin Gupta, despite arguments regarding the differentiation of qualifications. The respondents were deemed eligible for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD based on their qualifications. (Paras 3, 14, 26)

(B) Judicial Precedents - The court emphasizes that identical cases must be treated consistently under Article 14 of the Constitution, thus, the respondents’ eligibility for age relaxation cannot be negated, despite contentions regarding the specificity of prior rulings. (Paras 12, 27, 30)

Facts of the case:
Respondents completed the Dip Ed in 2008 but were declared ineligible for recruitment due to exceeding age limits post-recruitment rule changes; they argued against this citing precedents.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal's earlier decision granting age relaxation to similarly situated candidates was upheld, quashing the DSSSB's order declaring the respondents ineligible.

Issues: The court addressed whether the qualifications of the candidates warranted the same treatment under the law and if the denial of age relaxation constituted discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the equivalency of the Dip Ed qualification to ETE, fortifying the need for equal treatment and age relaxation in line with prior judgments.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed, grant application upheld.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. These cases are fully covered by the order dated 20 September 2017 passed by the Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board [“the DSSSB” hereinafter]

2. Nonetheless, a brief overview of the facts would be appropriate.

3. As these writ petitions involved identical issues, we deem it appropriate to advert to the facts with respect to WP (C) No. 5179/2018. [ Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Durga Parshad ]

4. The respondents in WP (C) 5179/2018 were the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal [“the Tribunal” hereinafter] in OA 450/2015. Respondents 1 and 3 to 6 passed the Diploma in Education [“Dip Ed” hereinafter] Examination, which was a two year course conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal in 2008. Respondent 2 passed the Dip Ed Examination conducted by the Secondary Education Department, Haryana, also a two year course, in 2008. As such, it is not in dispute that all the respondents had obtained the Dip Ed qualification, as conferred by the Board of Secondary Education in different States in 2008.

5. The DSSSB, by Advertisement 04/2009, invited applications from persons who desired to be recruited to the post of Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal corporation of Delhi. [“the MCD” hereinafter] The respondents applied in pursuance to the advertisement. They appeared in the written examination which was conducted on 2 February 2014. The results of the examination were published by the DSSSB by Office Order dated 5 December 2014. In pursuance thereof, candidates were provisionally selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary).

6. The grievance of the respondents stemmed from a subsequent Office Order issued by the DSSSB on 5 December 2014, by which several candidates, including the respondents, were declared as ineligible for recruitment and appointment as Teacher (Primary) as they were overage.

7. The respondents represented, against the said decision, to the DSSSB. In their representation, they relied on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sachin Gupta v. DSSSB , 2008 SCC Online Del 989. In that case, the Division Bench of this Court had held that candidates who had completed the Elementary Teacher Education [“ETE” hereinafter] Course between 2006 and 2008 were entitled to age relaxation while being considered for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary) following Advertisement 04/2009. The respondents sought the benefit of the said judgment.

8. As the DSSSB rejected their representation, the respondents instituted OA 450/2015 before the Tribunal, in which they prayed that they be considered for appointment as Teacher (Primary) in the MCD pursuant to Advertisement 04/2009 in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sachin Gupta.

9. The OA was contested by the petitioners as the respondents before the Tribunal. The petitioners contended that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of the decision in Sachin Gupta, as the candidates in Sachin Gupta had cleared the ETE qualification in 2008, whereas the respondents were holders not of ETE but of the qualification of Dip Ed, though also obtained in 2008.

10. We may note, there, that Mr N.K. Singh, appearing for the petitioner, advances this as his primary submission before us, as well.

11. The Tribunal found that the issue raised by the respondent was no longer res integra in view of its earlier decision rendered on 2 February 2015 in Praveen Kumar v. DSSSB , O.A. No. 4616/2014.

12. There can be no real dispute that the situation of the respondents in the present petition is identical to that of the applicants in Praveen Kumar. The applicants in Praveen Kumar were also admittedly holders of the Dip Ed qualification obtained in 2008. They had also applied for recruitment as Teacher (Primary) in the MCD, pursuant to advertisement 04/2009. Their case was also rejected on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit of