W.P. (C) 1986/2021

$~Suppl.-18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 15^th February, 2021

+

W.P. (C) 1986/2021

SUBHASHREE DASH

.....Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Uma Devi, Advocate.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through:

Mr. N.K. Srivastava, Sr. Panel

Counsel for R-1/UOI.

Ms. Rashmi Bansal, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Rajat Bhatia & Ms. Nidhi

Sahay, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Akshay Chandra & Mr. Ravjyot

Singh, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

ASHA MENON, J (Oral):

CM APPL. 5793/2021

1.

Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 1986/2021, CM APPL. 5792/2021

3.

The present petition has been filed by a candidate in the recruitment

2021:DHC:540-DB

W.P. (C) 1986/2021

for teachers by respondent No.2/Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS)

pursuant to the notification/advertisement dated 14.08.2018 issued by them.

She is aggrieved by the dismissal of her O.A. by the Central Administrative

Tribunal ('Tribunal' in short) vide its order dated 03.09.2020.

4.

The petitioner having applied for the post of TGT (Mathematics) in

pursuance of the aforesaid notification of respondent No.2/KVS, wrote the

II-Tier exam and secured the 83^rd position under the General Category.

However when she appeared for the interview scheduled for 14.02.2019, the

officials of respondent No.2/KVS did not allow her to proceed her to attend

the interview on the ground that she did not meet the essential eligibility

criteria as per the advertisement.

5.

Aggrieved, she filed the O.A. 685/2019 before the Tribunal seeking

direction to respondent No.2/KVS to consider her for appointment on the

basis of the rank secured by her. The Tribunal vide the impugned order

dated 03.09.2020 considered the qualifications as advertised and concluded

as under :

2021:DHC:540-DB

W.P. (C) 1986/2021

6.

Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Uma Devi has primarily

contended that respondent No.2/ KVS had accepted her application form

when she had filled in her educational qualification under the head of 'others'

and having so accepted her application, had permitted her to write the II-Tier

exam. Therefore, the respondent No.2/KVS could not now debar her from

appearing in the interview and being considered for selection.

8.

It is her further contention that the National Council for Teacher

Education (NCTE) had itself relaxed the norms for admission to the B.Ed.

course in the year 2015 permitting B.Tech graduates to pursue two years

B.Ed. course. The learned counsel contended that once the NCTE had

allowed the B.Tech graduates to obtain B.Ed. degree, respondent No.2/KVS

had no discretion left in the matter and had to consider B.Tech graduates

also for the TGT (Mathematics) post. She further argued that the

Engineering graduates underwent the same curriculum in the B.Ed. course

for Mathematics and Physical Science. Since respondent No.2/KVS had

prescribed passing of the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) Paper-II

in Mathematics and Science as necessary to apply for the TGT

(Mathematics) posts in respondent No.2/KVS and the petitioner having

acquired such eligibility, respondent No.2/KVS could not exclude her from

consideration for the recruitment to the post of TGT (Mathematics).

9.

It is on the basis of these arguments that the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had misdirected itself. She has

submitted that the same be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to appear

for the interview.

2021:DHC:540-DB

W.P. (C) 1986/2021

10.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any binding

rule to the effect that the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE to gain entry

into

the

B.Ed.

Course

had

to

be