Full Judgment
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.05.2010 whereby his candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Hindi) was rejected by the respondents on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under Recruitment Rules (RRs) in that he did not have Hindi as an “elective” subject at degree level, rather he passed Hindi as a “compulsory” subject.
2. The short question before us is whether the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under RRs which read as under:-
“9(b) as per Recruitment Rules then in force the candidate should have “Four years integrated Degree Course of Regional Colleges of Education of NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate or Second Class Bachelor’s Degree with atleast 50% marks in the concerned subject(s) and in aggregate including elective and Languages in the combination of subjects as under:
For TGT (Hindi)-Hindi as an Elective subject at Degree level.”
3. It is the admitted case that the applicant did not have Hindi as an “elective” subject at degree level.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of applicant should be considered in the context of the judgment dated 15.09.2008 of this Tribunal in the case of Anil Dahiya Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (OA-1054/2008) where this Tribunal taking into account the RRs of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi where there was no differential between “elective” and “compulsory” subject allowed a similar application where the applicant therein had passed “Hindi” only as a compulsory subject. While doing so, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 25.07.2008 in the case of Saroj Rana and Anr. Vs. GNCTD and Ors., (CWP No. 2576/2002) which decided the issue after examining the definition given by Delhi Government in their corrigendum dated 13.03.2000.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the case of Smt. Babita Devi Vs. KVS (OA-573/2009) decided on 19.08.2009 to contend that the judgment of the Tribunal in Dahiya’s case was distinguished and in a similar case where the candidate had passed “English” not as an “elective” but “compulsory” subject was not considered eligible as per RRs of the respondent Sangathan. The relevant paragraph of the order reads as under:-
“12.One more contention raised by the Applicant’s counsel is that in so far as the definition of elective is concerned what is applicable for the Government of NCT of Delhi, same will also be good for the KVS. The Government of NCT of Delhi decided to define “elective” in the Cabinet decision No.242 dated 2.5.1997 as under:
“While deciding the eligibility of candidates in different subjects at graduation level i.e. Maths, Natural Science, Social Science, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Punjabi and Urdu, Elective subjects as specified in the RRs may be interpreted to mean all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation as the case may be with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject as the case may be. The Elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities.” He relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1054/2008 and 41 other OAs decided by a common order dated 15.09.2008 in support of his contention. We have gone through the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1054/2008 and 41 other OAs and note that the Applicants in those OAs possessed BA Pass and did not have any elective subject. Besides, the Cabinet decision of the Government of NCT of Delhi has given a clarification or interpretation of “elective” which came to the help of the Tribunal and it was observed as:-
“We are of the view that once, there is no definition of the word “elective” in the rules the same can well be clarified by executive instructions. That the Cabinet had taken decision on 2.5.1997 and that a corrigendum dated 14.3.2002 clarifying that the word “elective” would mean and include all those who have passed the concerned subject in all the years/semesters of graduation, as the case may be, with at least 100 marks paper each year/semester in the concerned teaching subject, and the elective work may also include main subject as practiced in different universities, is not in dispute.”
Between the present OA and the cited judgment there are 2 clear distinctions namely (i) the Applicant has passed BA with Sanskrit as elective in all 3 years of BA whereas in the referred judgment the Applicants did not have any elective; and (ii) there is no clarification by the executive of the Central Government as that exists for the Government of NCT of Delhi. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1054/2008 and 41 other OAs is clearly and unambiguously distinguishable and thus not applicable for the present OA.”
6. The applicant admits that he did not have “Hindi” as an “elective” subject for his degree level examination, rather he studied “Hindi” as a compulsory subject. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the Babita Devi’s case (supra). Therefore, it is not necessary for us to further elucidate the reason given by this Tribunal to come to the conclusion that any candidate who did not have “Hindi” as an “elective” subject at the degree level examination would not be eligible as per the requirement of the RRs. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others, 2008(7) SCC 153 held that if, at the time of initial appointment, a candidate did not possess requisite qualification as per the prescribed rules, his very appointment itself would be a nullity in the eyes of law and no further direction could be given for acquiring the same degree at a later stage.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.