Similarly situated candidates with higher qualifications entitled to equal treatment under Articles 14 & 16, overriding strict graduation elective requirements.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a) to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 22.11.2017 and 21.09.2020 of respondent(s) annexed hereto as Annexure-A-1 & A-2 respectively to the OA as illegal and arbitrary.

b) Be further pleased to pass an order directing respondent(s) to appoint the applicant to the post of TGT (English), Female, (post code-05/ 13) from the date of appointment of junior with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of difference of pay and allowances.

c) to allow the present OA with exemplary costs;

d) to pass such other or further order(s) which their lordship of this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA has been filed assailing the arbitrary rejection of the applicant’s candidature for the post of TGT (English) Female under Post Codes 107/12 and 05/13, despite her being identically situated to Ms. Rinku Singh, whose candidature was rejected on the very same ground “English not studied in II & III year of Graduation”, but who was granted relief by this Tribunal in OA No. 2950/2016 (Rinku Singh v. DSSSB & Ors.) vide order dated 03.01.2018, directing consideration of her candidature on merit, pursuant to which she was appointed vide order dated 17.01.2020.

2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant and Ms. Rinku Singh both belong to the UR category, appeared in the same examination held on 28.12.2014, and applied for the same post; notably, the applicant secured higher marks than Ms. Rinku Singh, yet her candidature was rejected vide the impugned order.

2.2. Learned counsel contended that the applicant possesses B.Ed. (67.7%) with English as a teaching subject from MDU Rohtak (2004–05), completed B.A. (Additional English) in 2010–11 after B.Com., clearing Part I, II and III in a single academic year and further holds M.A. (English) (2005–08) with 55.7% marks, besides qualifying CTET (2012) for classes VI–VIII with English subject. Despite repeated representations and public grievances, the respondents refused relief on the ground that the recruitment process had been closed and vacancies surrendered; however, the same process was reopened to implement the CAT’s order in favour of Ms. Rinku Singh, thereby creating a clear case of hostile discrimination and unequal treatment.

2.3. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Directorate of Education & Anr. v. Neelam Rana (WP(C) 575/2013, decided on 07.08.2013), wherein, it was held that a candidate possessing M.A. (English) is eligible for appointment as TGT (English) even if English was not studied at the graduate level. In these circumstances, learned counsel submitted that denial of appointment to the applicant, despite parity in facts and superior merit, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Opposing the OA, learned proxy counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant’s candidature was rightly rejected vide the impugned order for not fulfilling the essential educational qualifications as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, which mandate that the concerned subject must have been studied at the elective level in all parts/years of graduation. The applicant admittedly completed B.Com. and thereafter pursued B.A. (Additional English) in one year, and thus did no