$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:- 19th December,2017 Date of Decision :- 11th January,2018.

+ W.P.(C) 11328/2017 & C.M. No.46270/2017 (for stay) &

C.M. No.46271/2017(for exemption)

ANNU AND ORS. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Advocate.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel (Civil) with Mr.Sandeepan Pathak, Advocate for GNCTD.

Mr.Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Santosh Kr. Pandey, GP for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI JUGEMENT REKHA PALLI, J

1. The present writ petition assails a judgment dated 02.06.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing O.A. No. 3227/2016, filed by the petitioners. All the fourteen petitioners herein had approached the Tribunal praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to appoint them as Trained Graduate Teachers (hereinafter referred to as TGTs) in the schools of the respondent no.1/GNCTD, on basis of their performance in the DSSSB examination held pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2012, result whereof was declared in January

2016.

2. Briefly stated, the facts as emerge from the records are that, the respondent no. 3/DSSSB had issued Advertisement No. 02/2012 for selection of TGTs in different subjects for schools run by the respondent no.1 and 2/GNCTD. The closing date for receipt of the applications for the said post was 15.06.2012 and the eligibility conditions prescribed therein specified that besides meeting the other criteria, the candidates must have qualified the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as CTET), conducted by the respondent no.5/CBSE.

3. We may note that as per the general instructions and procedure prescribed for submission of applications for the subject post, it was essential for the candidates to have the requisite qualifications as on the closing date of receipt of the application, which was 15.06.2012. It was also laid down in the general instructions that the candidates applying for the subject post should ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions and merely because a candidate is allowed to appear at the examination, would not be considered as a valid ground for determining his eligibility, if at a subsequent stage, it is found that he/she did not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions on the closing date of receipt of the application.

4. The fourteen petitioners herein who were admittedly not holding the qualification of CTET, as on 15.06.2012, the cutoff date for submission of the applications against the above said advertisement, proceeded to submit their applications manually, by leaving the column relating to CTET as blank and subsequently, as directed by the respondents, they switched over to the Online Application Registration System (OARS) where they once again, left the said column blank.

5. All the petitioners were issued e-admit cards for appearing in the examination and on 12.01.2016, when the result of the said examination was declared by the respondent no.3/DSSSB, the names of all the petitioners had appeared in the merit list as successful candidates for the subject post.

6. Soon, after the declaration of the result on 28.01.2016, the respondent no. 3/DSSSB initiated the process of document verification in respect of the successful candidates and vide separate rejection letters issued to them in April-May 2016, the petitioners were informed that their selection had been cancelled on the ground of their not possessing the CTET qualification on the cut off date of 15.06.2012. In the rejection letter of the petitioner nos. 3 and 7, an additional reason of not having the qualification of B.Ed. before the cut off date was also mentioned.

7. Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidatures, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by way of the aforesaid O.A. In their application, while seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint them as TGT in t