Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12684
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J), Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Society for Teachers’ Cause Through its Secretary (Correspondence) Dr. Kuldeep Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi Through Director, Directorate of Education – Respondent
O.A. No. 345/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vidya Sagar, Ms. Ishita Aggarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma
Discriminatory amendments in recruitment rules for teacher promotions violate equality principles; qualifications must be uniformly applicable.
Headnote:(A) Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Discriminatory amendments in Recruitment Rules - Challenge against amended Recruitment Rules for promotion of TGTs to PGTs contended as violative of principles of equality; court noted that disqualification of promotees with relevant degrees is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 8.4, 8.6 and 8.7)
(B) Recruitment Rules - Amendments not reasonable - Introduced a classification excluding certain TGTs with relevant qualifications from promotional avenues to PGTs based on subject taught, found to lack rational nexus with objectives of efficiency and welfare. (Para 8.3)
Facts of the case:
Applicants contested the amendments limiting eligibility for promotion to PGT roles, asserting they violated Article 16 by denying opportunities based on a newly established classification.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the classification created by the amendments was arbitrary and harmful, and directed that the amendments be quashed.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the discriminatory nature of the amended rules, particularly Clause 11 and its implications on Article 16.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that denying promotees the opportunity based on subject relevancy fails to serve the legislative intent of ensuring consistent opportunities for education professionals.
Result: Applicants' O.A. allowed; the amended RRs were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of discrimination in recruitment amendments. (Para 2 , 3) |
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
The applicants who are working as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) have placed challenge to the amended recruitment rules for the post of Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) notified on 29.09.2022. Accordingly, they have filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
“ I) Quash and set aside the Post Graduate Teachers (Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Agriculture, Biology, Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, English, Geography, History, Horticulture, Mathematics, Physics, Political Science, Sociology and Psychology) Recruitment Rules 2022 notified on 29.09.2022 and circulated dated 19.10.2022; or in the alternative
Quash and set aside its Paras No. 6, No. 9 (in respect of Educational Qualification), No. 10 and No. 11
II) Direct the respondents that the existing TGTs will continue to be governed by the pre-revised RRs for promotion to the post of PGTs;
III) Direct the respondents to consider the existing the Applicants (existing TGTs) for promotion as PGT as per pre-revised RRs;
IV) Direct the respondents to comply with the guidelines issued by the DoPT vide OM dated 31.12.2010 to protect the interests of existing TGTs;
V) Pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”
2. Mr. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the applicants assisted by Ms. Ishita Aggarwal, learned counsel, while drawing attention to the amended recruitment rules placed at page 79, specifically, to clauses, 7, 8, 10 and 11, submits:
i) The method of recruitment to the post of PGT, under the un-amended RRs was 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. However, in clause 10 of the amended RRs, the percentage of posts to be filled in by promotion is 50%, thereby, reducing the same from 75% to 50% to the disadvantage to the applicants.
ii) In clause 7 of the amended rules, with respect to the direct recruits, the essential qualification prescribed is Master’s degree in the concerned subject from a recognized university, implying that in order to get appointed as PGT in a particular subject a candidate should possess only a Master’s degree in that subject. To clarify, a candidate may have obtained graduation degree in any subject, however, it is only his master’s degree that would make him eligible to be considered for appointment for the said post. To the contrary, for the promotees, drawing attention to clause 11, he clarifies that by virtue of the amended RRs, it has been stated that only TGT in a particular subject who possesses master’s degree in the same subject would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of PGT.
iii) He explains that considering there was a TGT teaching Hindi, only if he possess master’s degree in Hindi could he be entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of PGT. Accordingly, he states that there is a discriminatory treatment being meted out to the applicants against the direct recruits.
iv) In the case of direct recruits, only master’s degree is being taken into consideration while with respect to the promotees, the feeder grade degree as well as the promotional degree is required to be seen. Therefore, the amended RRs are arbitrary and discriminatory to this effect.
v) By virtue of the RRs (page 78) the age which was earlier 36 years for direct recruits has now been reduced to 30 years. He explains that due to this reduction in age, even if the applicants wanted to pursue master’s degree in the relevant subject, they cannot do so. He adds that all the applicants are above the age of 35 years and even if they obtained the relevant degree, they would be rendered ineligible.
vi) By virtue of the amendment in the RRs, particularly with respect to the change in the qualifications, the applicants have been rendered ineligible for promotion for all times. He explains that as the applicants do not possess the master’s degree in the
