ORDER
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
1. OA No.4586/2011 with MA No.385/2012 was heard on 12.04.2012 and reserved for orders. OAs No. 2857/2011, 2858/2011 and 2961/2011 were also heard the very next day on 13.04.2012 and reserved for orders. The subject matter of these four cases being the same, and this being the third round of adjudication before this Tribunal, they are being disposed of through a common order.
2. The issue in these four cases is that if the applicant against a particular advertisement for the post of a Teacher, which prescribes a specific qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in a subject to have been obtained before the cut off date, (which is normally the last date for filing of applications by any candidate), with studies in the relevant subject (for teaching which the application has been filed) having been prescribed to have been included in all the three years of the course of studies of the prescribed Bachelor’s Degree, can be considered to be eligible for consideration for appointment as a Teacher against that subject specific post, even if he or she had not fulfilled the basic prescribed criteria of having studied the concerned subject in all the three years of the Bachelor’s Degree course, but had subsequently caught up with the required essential qualification, by undertaking a Compressed (normally one year) Advanced Course subsequently, in which all the papers of all the three years. Bachelor’s degree course of that particular subject were taken by him or her together, in a single year, sometimes in a single examination schedule. It would now be relevant to discuss the facts of these cases after laying down the context of these cases.
OA No.4586/2011
3. The applicant of this case responded to an advertisement issued by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, in short) dated 07.11.2009 Advertisement No.001/2010 seeking applications from eligible candidates between 22.02.2010 and the closing date of 15.03.2010. The vacancies of TGTs were in the Post Code 01/10, 02/10 and in the Post Code 05/10 to 10/10. The applicant of this OA applied for the post of TGT English(Female) in respect of which 139 vacancies were advertised with appropriate reservations and 78 General category vacancies under Post Code 02/10. The essential qualification prescribed, as reproduced by the applicant herself in her OA was as follows:-
For TGT (Post Code 01/10, 2/10 and 05/10 to 10/10):
Educational and Other Qualifications as per RR:
Essential: "A Bachelor's Degree (Honours/Pass) or equivalent from a recognised University having secured 45% marks in aggregate, in two school subjects of which atleast one out of the following should have been at the elective level:- 1. English, 2. Mathematics, 3. Natural/Physical Science, 4. Social Science.
Note:- Main subjects for TGT (Natural Science/Phy. Science) shall be Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany and Zoology.
Social Science:- History / Political Science / Economics / Business Studies / Sociology / Geography / Psychology.
Provided further that the requirement as to minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate at graduation level shall be relaxble in case of (a) candidates who possess a Post Graduate qualification in any of the teaching subjects listed above. (b) belonging to SC/ST (c) Physically handicapped candidates;
(II) Degree/Diploma in Training Education or SAV certificate.
(III) Working knowledge of Hindi.
Provided that Assistant Teacher (from MCD/Dte. of Education) and lab. Assistants shall not be required to have received 45% marks in aggregate in Bachelor's Degree (Pass/Honours) or equivalent.
N.B. - "The candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the R/Rs in all parts/years of graduation. The elective Word may also include main subject as practiced in different Universities”
(Emphasis supplied).
4. The applicant was issued an admit card by DSSSB for a two parts for written examination, and was even communicated by DSSSB her marks when she applied for the same through RTI. When she sought information about how many marks were awarded to the last selected candidate under the unreserved category, and why her result had not been intimated, she was informed through RTI reply Annexure A-4 that in Part-I examination, she had been awarded 107 marks out of 200, and similarly in Part-II examination 111 marks out of 200 were awarded to her, and it was further informed that the last selected candidate was awarded 93/200 in Part-II examination and that her result was in the pending list. Once again on 09.06.2011, in reply to a RTI query the applicant was informed that her case was under process and the result will be declared in due course. But when finally on 27.09.2011, the result was declared, her candidature had been declared to have been cancelled in view of the fact that she did not possess the requisite qualification, which the applicant has challenged.
5. The applicant has actually passed her Higher Secondary School Certificate from Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education in 1993, and Delhi Senior School Certificate Examination in 1995. Afterwards she did Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA, in short) from Annamalai University, through a Correspondence Course, completing her first year BBA in May 1996, 2nd year in May 1997, and completed the 3rd year BBA in May 1998, and was awarded the BBA degree thereafter on 08.12.1998. In the first year of her BBA, her course included a paper English Prose and Usage and in the second year of the BBA the paper of English Composition and Business Correspondence was included. There was no paper relating to English language in the third year of her BBA Correspondence Course. In December 2005, she passed her Bachelor of Education, again through a Correspondence Course, and was awarded a B.Ed. Degree from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU, in short) on 31.03.2006. She then took up, again through Distance Education, the Correspondence one year compressed course of B.A. English (Double Degree) from Annamalai University. According to the Statement of Marks of May 2006 Examination of the said University issued on 22.09.2006, she had appeared at 3 out of 5 prescribed papers, and had passed in those three papers, and according to the Marks Sheet dated 20.03.2007 in respect of December 2006 Examination of that University, she had passed in the remaining two papers also. Thereafter she took up M.A. English Course, again as a private candidate, from the Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut, and according to the Marks Sheet dated 11.11.2007, she passed the first year of M.A. in English, and through Marks Sheet dated 08.08.2008, she passed the second year of M.A. (Final) in English.
6.The applicant’s case is that as per the clarification issued to her by the IGNOU on 01.06.2011, a Combination of B.A. English (Double Degree) with B.B.A. (three years Distance Education) is valid for the purposes of a Govt. job, and she has, therefore, submitted that Distance Education B.A. English (Double Degree) with B.B.A. three years Distance Education Degree fulfils the norms of Recruitment Rules as mentioned in the advertisement for the post of TGT English (Female), as reproduced in para 3/above.
7. She has submitted that since she was educated in English subject in BBA also, followed by a Double Degree B.A. English course, through the two degrees combined together, she had obtained better knowledge of English than those candidates who had got B.A. (Hons.) Regular Degree with English as an elective subject, and, therefore, the cancellation of her candidature by the respondents is arbitrary, and violative of her rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She has submitted that there was no proper application of mind by the respondents while considering her candidature, and that the respondents have failed to apply their mind that the Recruitment Rules as notified in the advertisement include the word A Bachelor’s Degree (Hons./Pass) or equivalent, and that the respondents have failed to cover her candidature under the equivalent clause. She had also submitted that since her marks were more than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate, she was fully qualified to be selected. She has further submitted that since she also possesses a degree in MA (English), she possesses more than the requisite/prescribed educational qualification, and, therefore, the actions of the respondents in rejecting her candidature, without assigning any specific and cogent reasons, are liable to be set aside. In the result, she had prayed for the following reliefs:-
a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 so far as cancellation of candidature of the applicant is concerned vide her roll No.0216799 directing the respondents to declare her result for the post of TGT English Female, and grant all consequential benefits treating at par with her colleagues.
b) to direct the respondents to scrutinize the case of the applicant and declare her result and in case she is found in merit, she may be offered the post of TGT English Female along with all consequential benefits.
c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.
OA NO.2857/2011
8. The applicant of this OA is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the Respondent No.1, cancelling his candidature for the post of TGT (Sanskrit). After passing his Board of Secondary Education in Rajasthan in 1995, he had taken admission in the B.A. course in the University of Rajasthan with the subjects of Hindi, Economics and Political Science. His course of study also included two compulsory papers of General Hindi and General English, which examination he took in the year 1996 and passed as per Marks Sheet dated 04.09.1996. His B.A. Part-II Examination of 1997 did not have any compulsory papers, but as per the Marks Sheet dated 12.09.1997, he passed in his three main subjects of Hindi Literature, Economics and Political Science. He finally cleared the B.A. Part-III Examination of 1998 also, as per the Marks Sheet dated 07.10.1998, having passed in all his three main subjects.
9. The very next year, as per the enabling Regulation O.203 of the University of Rajasthan Regulations (Annexure-A-3), the applicant appeared at the B.A. Additional Examination 1999- in Sanskrit subject, as a Non-Collegiate category candidate, and passed in one year itself the Part-I, Part-II and Part-III of B.A. (Additional) Sanskrit Examinations, in Hindi Medium, as per the Marks Sheet dated 15.09.1999 filed by him. A provisional certificate to that effect of his having passed B.A. (Additional) Examination in Sanskrit in 1999 was issued by the University of Rajasthan on 14.03.2009, and a certificate in lieu of degree was also issued on 16.03.2009. The applicant thereafter took his B.Ed Examination for teaching Sanskrit through Central Sanskrit Vidhya Peeth, Jaipur, Rajasthan, and passed the B.Ed. degree in 2001. Thereafter, he secured MA (Sanskrit) degree also as a private candidate, as is apparent from the Marks Sheet dated 21.08.2002 in respect of his MA first year, and Marks sheet dated 16.09.2003 in respect of his second year, and he was declared having passed the Acharya degree, equivalent to MA (Sanskrit) Examination in 2003 from the deemed University of Rasthraya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi.
10. The Respondent No.2 advertised the posts of T.G.T. (Sanskrit) (Post Code 153/07) in October, 2007 for the schools run by the Respondent No.1. The applicant, having passed the B.A. (Additional) examination in Sanskrit as an additional optional subject, considered himself qualified for appointment on the post of TGT (Sanskrit), more so because of the degree in B.Ed and also Acharya (equivalent to M.A. in Sanskrit) he considered himself over- qualified. He appeared in the examination conducted by Respondent No.2 in May 2008, passed the said examination, and his name appeared in the list of selected candidates, and his dossier was sent to the Respondent No.1, along with those of other candidates, for the purposes of considering issuing appointment orders.
11. An offer of appointment was issued to the applicant through Annexure A-8 dated 16.03.2009, asking him to appear on 27.03.2009 along with the original documents for the purpose of verification and scrutiny, which was completed, but yet the applicant did not receive any communication of his appointment, nor was he given any posting. His oral enquiries revealed to him that an objection had been raised on account of his possessing a degree in Sanskrit only as B.A. (Additional), which was under consideration. The applicant thereafter moved an application under the RTI Act, seeking to know the reasons for his appointment being with-held, upon which he was informed that the appointments of candidates having the relevant qualification in B.A. (Additional) was under the consideration of Competent Authority.
12. The applicant has submitted that it is not as if the B.A. (Additional) course of University of Rajasthan is not recognized by the respondents, and one Shri Mangi Ram Meena, an employee of O-Block, Janakpuri, School No.2, had earlier been promoted on the basis of such a B.A. (Additional) degree completed in one year, and two more persons one Shri Mahavir Prasad and other Shri Govind Saran Shara, were also promoted on the basis of similar B.A. (Additional) degree qualifications. At Annexure A-10 of the OA, the applicant has produced a copy of the order of promotion of Shri Mangi Ram Meena dated 30.08.2007 [Annexure A-10 (colly)] as T.G.T. (Hindi) in ST quota. The information in respect of promotion of Shri Mahavir Prasad as TGT Social Science on the basis of B.A. (Additional) 2003 degree was also obtained by the applicant under RTI through reply dated 09.02.2010. Further, information in respect of the promotion of Shri Govind Saran Shara as TGT (Sanskrit) on the basis of his acquiring B.A. (Additional) qualification in his subject was obtained by the applicant through RTI reply dated 28.01.2010. He has also submitted that one Shri Dinesh Kumar, who had passed the examination of Sanskrit subject as an additional optional subject in one year from Osmania University, has been granted appointment after the counselling held on 13.08.2009, and his degree as additional subject has also been recognized.
13. The applicant has further pointed out that this is not the first time that this issue is coming up before this Tribunal. Four such cases in OA No.3628/2009, OA No.3602/2009, OA No.2782/2009 and OA No.3235/2009 had been filed on the same subject matter. The OA No.3602/2009 filed by one Shri Jaswant Singh Yadav was decided by the Tribunal first in his favour, and was then followed in the case of Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Babu Lal Sharma also, the applicants of the second and the third OAs. The 4th OA was decided in favour of Shri Pravesh Meena as per order dated 15.03.2010. These four judgments delivered by this Tribunal were challenged by the official respondents before the Honble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) Nos. 5835/2010,6000/2010, 6006/2010 and 6067/2010, which four Writ Petitions came to be disposed of together by the Hon’ble High Court on 04.10.2010, setting aside the orders passed by this Tribunal, and restoring the cases for fresh adjudication by this Tribunal. The present applicant Shri Satish Kumar had also filed an OA No.2789/2009 earlier, in which order dated 26.03.2010 had been passed by this Tribunal, which, by the operation of the Hon’ble High Court’s order in WP (C) 6067/2010, stood set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication by this Tribunal. As a result, the present applicant’s case, along with the cases of the other three, covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court were re-heard and the order dated 10.12.2011 was passed by this Tribunal to the following effect:-
“To conclude, having freshly adjudicated all these four OAs as per the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in their order dated 4.10.2010, we are of the considered view that in the totality of the circumstances of the cases and the law on the subject, it would meet the ends of justice to dispose of those OAs with direction for reconsideration by the Respondents. The respondents 1 and 3 i.e., the GNCTD are directed to refer the cases of the applicants in all these OAs to a competent academic body like the UGC with regard to the claim of equivalence. On receipt of recommendation of such a body, the respondents are directed to take a final view as regards the eligibility of the applicants to the posts and pass a speaking and reasoned order. We would also like to clarify here that in the event of a positive outcome, the respondents would offer appointments to the applicants, with a prospective effect, if necessary even by creating supernumerary posts. These directions are to be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs”.
14. It was after this that the respondents passed the order dated 27.05.2011, impugned by the applicant in the present OA, submitting as follows:-
“11. and whereas, Hon’ble CAT vide its judgment dated 21/12/2010 has disposed off the OA with the direction to re-consider the matter in consultation with the University Grant Commission and take a final decision in the matter.
12. and whereas, in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble CAT, a letter was written to the Secretary, University Grant Commission vide this office letter no. F.DE.3 (62)/E-III/DR/Verification/09/2208 dated 01.03.2011 with the request to offer their expert opinion in the light of existing RRs of this Department for the post of TGT (MIL).
13. and whereas, in response to this Directorate letter dated 01/03/2011, a reply vide letter no. F.5-1/2009(CPP-II) dated 26th April, 2011 has received from Education Officer, UGC in this Directorate as per contents below.
The UGC (Minimum Standards of instruction for the grant of first degree through formal Education) Regulation, 2003 provide that no student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he/she has successfully completed a programme, of not less than three year duration and secured the minimum number of credits prescribed by the university for the award of degree (A copy of regulation is enclosed). After the first degree of 3 years duration, a university may conduct additional degree programme in one or more than one subjects for which UGC has not prescribed any regulations. Further, for the purpose of employment suitability of a candidate and requirement of educational qualification are decided by the employer organization.
14. and whereas, a degree/course should be recognized from UGC and a teaching degree in education/course should have the recognition from NCTE.
15. and whereas, in the instant case, University concerned has allowed individual concerned to pass Sanskrit (Additional) subject after passing the graduation degree course, which he has not studied during his graduation. The acquisition of such a certificate/mark sheet after the graduation cannot be equated with the regular study done by a candidate in all parts/years of graduation course as required in the Recruitment Rules of this Directorate. Further, in order to maintain the quality teaching in schools and in the interest of study of students, it will not be appropriate if such candidates are considered eligible.
16. Now therefore, In compliance of orders of the Hon’ble CAT in OA No. 3628/2009 the case of Sh. Satish Kumar has been re-examined in accordance with the reply received from University Grant Commission and Recruitment Rules of this Directorate for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) and it is found that Sh. Satish Kumar does not fulfill the required eligibility criteria for the post of TGT (Sanskrit).
This issues with the prior approval of the Competent Authority”.
(Emphasis supplied).
15. Aggrieved by this, the applicant has approached this Tribunal once again, submitting that after the orders dated 10.12.2011 were passed, rejection of the case of the applicant is in complete violation of the orders of this Tribunal. He has in this context framed the following issues for our consideration in Para-4(i) of his OA:-
Whether in absence of any special regulation under the University Grants Commission and specific rule under Rajasthan University Rules, can the Respondent No.1 authority ignore the same, despite specific direction by this Hon’ble Court?.
Whether the right of a person to employment for a particular post can be fettered with by the administrative employment organizations even when the candidate is in possession of a degree duly recognized by all the states and affiliated to a state university only on the ground that he has passed the said subject in all parts in one year rather than in 3 years?
“Whether in the absence of any specific guidelines or regulations prescribed by the UGC, the government employment organisation can reject the candidature of a person at its own whims without giving any reasonable explanation in that regard?”.
16. The other contentions of the applicant have already been considered by this Tribunal twice, while passing its first order dated 26.03.2010 in OA No.2782/2009, and re-adjudicated order on 10.12.2011, and by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 04.10.2010, they need not be repeated here. Apart from these three legal issues, the 4th issue which the applicant has raised as ground-N in this OA is that the Rules for promotion and Direct Recruitment are the same, and, therefore, when on the basis of an Additional degree obtained in the same manner others have been promoted in the same establishment, fresh appointment by direct recruitment cannot be denied to the applicant with a degree obtained in the same manner, and in doing so, the actions of the respondents are arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and unjustified.
17. Apart from this, applicant had re-submitted that having passed Acharya (equivalent to MA) in Sanskrit from Rathraya Sanskrit Sansthan, applicant is actually more qualified than the minimum qualification prescribed, and must be granted appointment even on the basis of the said higher degree, since being more qualified cannot be a dis-qualification. In the result, he has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“1. Appropriate order or directions thereby directing the Respondent no.1 to grant the Applicant appointment and posting on the post of TGT Sanskrit.
Grant the Applicant all consequential benefits including the seniority from the date of letter of appointment to the post of TGT Sanskrit.
Any other, order or direction of such further orders or directions as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.
OA No.2858/2011
18. The facts in the case of this OA do not need detailed elaboration, because the applicant Shri Jaswant Singh Yadav had earlier filed OA No.3602/2009 before this Tribunal, the order in which was passed on 11.03.2010, which was set aside and restored for fresh adjudication before this Tribunal by the same orders dated 04.10.2010 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its order in WP (C ) 6006/2010, as mentioned in the case of the earlier OA No.3602/2009. The case was re-adjudicated along with the other three cases, and the common orders dated 10.12.2011 cited in Para-13/above were passed, based upon which the respondents re-considered his case, and have issued the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure A-1). The only difference in the case of this applicant from the case of Shri Satish Kumar (applicant in OA No.2857/2011) is that of the subject, since the present applicant had applied for the post of TGT (Hindi), as compared to the TGT (Sanskrit) of the previous case. The rest of the OA is actually exactly worded, including the relief portion, except for the replacement of the word TGT (Sanskrit) by the word TGT (Hindi), and the difference in the years of passing of the various examinations etc.
OA No.2961/2011
19.Once again, the case of this applicant in OA No.2787/2009 had been decided on 06.10.2009, and his second case in OA No.3628/2009 was decided on 26.03.2010, which order was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through its order dated 04.10.2010, and restored for fresh adjudication by this Tribunal, where after the combined order dated 10.12.2011 cited in Para 13/above was passed in the four OAs, leading to the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure A-1), which is similar to that of the case in OA No.2857/2011, except the change of the dates and years, and even the prayer portion of the two applications is the same, since both Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Babu Lal Sharma had applied for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) only.
20. Heard the cases in great detail. The cases were argued vehemently and the orders were reserved on 12.04.2012 and 13.04.2012. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants had relied upon the case of Sneh Lata vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in OA No.2242/2011, in which an order had been passed on 01.12.2011 by a Bench including one of us. Thereafter Contempt Petition had been filed in that OA, which was disposed of on 19.04.2012, recording the statement of the respondents that they would implement the order dated 01.12.2011 of this Tribunal, and that since then the respondents have appointed the said Ms. Sneh Lata as TGT (Sanskrit), subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition being filed by the respondents. Similar arguments were also submitted by the applicants of all the other three OAs.
21. We have given our anxious consideration to these cases, and considered the legal issues arising in these cases once again in the light of the three judgments of this Tribunal, and the 4th being the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the first two judgments of this Tribunal, in all of which the concerned case law has been examined. The 5th and the latest judgment of this Tribunal dated 01.12.2011 in OA No.2242/2011 has also to be considered by us in this context.
22. In the case of Jaswant Singh Yadav in OA No.3628/2009 decided on 11.03.2010, the case of Surender Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others in OA No.1897/2005 decided on 05.06.2007 was considered, in which in the restricted context of Jamia University policy for the year 1996-1997, it was ordered that additional subjects when passed would constitute eligibility. However, when the matter again came up again before this Tribunal in OA No. 2784/2009, no such clear-cut finding was arrived at, and the case was disposed of on 06.10.2009 directing the respondents to decide the representation. When the representation of the said Shri Surender Kumar was considered by the respondents, it was turned down on the ground that he had not studied Part-II and Part-III regular graduation course in Hindi, and had only passed B.A. (Additional) in 2003, and since it has otherwise been held that from the year 1996-1997 onwards, one year degree will not be valid, the said Shri Surender Kumar was found to be ineligible. The case of Dinesh Kumar having been granted appointment on the basis of having passed the examination in Hindi subject as an additional optional subject had also been cited in the case of Jaswant Singh Yadav. The Coordinate Bench noted that the policy of the Government is that the elective subject has been defined as one subject, which has been studied in all the three years of the degree course as a main subject, and any applicant who does not fulfil this requirement is not eligible, as per his educational qualifications. The Bench deciding the case of Jaswant Singh Yadav on 11.03.2010 decided to differ from the Coordinate Bench which had decided the case of Surender Kumar (supra) that from the year 1996-1997 onwards, one year degree will not be valid. Noting the decision taken by the authorities in the case of Dinesh Kumar, his OA was allowed. Similar orders were passed in the case of the other three OAs, which need not be discussed herein again for the sake of brevity.
23. However, the Hon’ble High Court, in its order dated 04.10.2010 in Director of Education and Ors. Vs. Baboo Lal Sharma and related cases (supra), went into the whole matter in greater detail. It considered the Corrigendum issued on 13.03.2000 by the Respondent authorities, clarifying and amending the Recruitment Rules, to state that the Recruitment Rules have been framed in such a manner that the candidate concerned should have studied the subject concerned in all papers/years of graduation, and should have obtained the weighted average of at least 100 marks each, and that this definition would include the definition of main subject as adopted by some Universities, and shall apply to all the orders of promotion as well as Direct Recruitment. The Hon’ble High Court then went on to discuss the classification of studies of various disciplines of education into (a) Core Subjects (b) Elective Subjects and (c) Mandatory or Subsidiary Subjects. The Hon’ble High Court also noted that in all the Universities across the country, the marks awarded for the Core and Elective Subjects are reckoned for the purposes of the grade awarded to the students, but not the marks awarded for the mandatory or subsidiary subjects. The Hon’ble High Court considered in detail the cases of three of the applicants before us, and re-produced in Paras 16 and 17 of its judgment the orders passed by the Respondent Authorities on 22.05.2009 in their cases, discussing the individual cases in a Tabular form:-
16. The Directorate of Education, before whom representations of Satish Kumar, Baboo Lal Sharma and one Mukesh Kumar were also pending, passed a common order pertaining to the said three persons and Jaswant Singh Yadav. The said order dated 24.09.2009 reads as under:-
To
The Dy. Secretary (CC II)
D.S.S.S.B.
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi - 110092
Sub: Regarding eligibility for the post of TGT/PGT (MIL)
Sir,
This Directorate is in receipt of the dossiers of the following 04 candidates during nominated by you for the post of TGT/PGT (MIL):
1. Mukesh Kumar, 14513358, 145/07 (candidate to post of TGT (Maths)
2. Jaswant Singh Yadav, 15112364, 151/07 (candidate to the post of TGT (Hindi)
3. Satish Kumar, 15310469, 153/07 (candidate to post of TGT (Skt.)
4. Babu Lal Sharma, 15312536, 153/07 (candidate to the post of TGT (Skt.)
During the course of verification of the documents of the candidates, the following irregularities /discrepancies have been observed which has been reflected below:-
S.No Name Roll No. and Post Code Subject Deficiency/ irregularities observed. Remarks
2. Jaswant Singh Yadav 15112364 151/07 Hindi The candidate has not studied Hindi in Part-II and Part-III of his graduation (Three year degree course). However, he has done B.A. Additional in Hindi in the year 2004.
(all the three parts in one year). The candidate has not studied Hindi in Part-II and Part-III of his graduation. However, he has done B.A. Additional in Hindi in the year 2004. (all the three parts in one year).
As per the decision of the Hon’ble CAT in the case of Sh Surender Kumar, the court agreed that from the year 1996-1997 onwards one year degree will not be valid. In view of the above, the candidate Sh.Jaswant Singh Yadav does not seem eligible for the post of TGT (Hindi).
3. Satish Kumar, 15310469 153/07 Sanskrit The candidate has not studied Sanskrit in any Part of his three years degree course of his Graduation. However, he has done B.A. Additional in Sanskrit in the year 1999. (All the three parts in one year). The subject Sanskrit has not been studied by the candidate in any part of his 03 years degree course of his Graduation. However, the candidate has done B.A. additional in Sanskrit in one year i.e. in the year 1999. As per the decision of the Hon’ble CAT in the case of Sh. Surender Kumar, the court agreed that from the year 1996-97 onwards one year degree will not be valid. In view of the above, the candidate does not seem eligible for the post of TGT (Sanskrit).
4. Baboo Lal Sharma 15312536 153/07 Sanskrit The subject Sanskrit has not been studied by the candidate in any part of his 03 years Degree course of his Graduation. However, the candidate has done B.A. (Sanskrit), Additional in the year 2005 in one year. The subject Sanskrit has not been studied by the candidate in any part of his 03 years degree course of his Graduation. However, the candidate has done B.A. additional in Sanskrit in one year i.e. in the year 2005. As per the decision of the Hon’ble CAT in the case of Sh. Surender Kumar, the Court agreed that from the year 1996-97 onwards one year degree will not be valid. In view of the above, the candidate does not seem eligible for the post of TGT (Sanskrit).
The above said cases were accordingly brought into the notice of the Competent Authority and approval for cancellation of candidature in respect of the candidates mentioned at S.No. 2,3 and 4 have been obtained from the Competent Authority. Moreover, the approval for seeking clarification in respect of the candidate mentioned at S.No.1 has also been obtained from the Competent Authority. Accordingly the dossiers (In original) of 03 candidates namely Sh. Jaswant Singh Yadav, Sh. Satish Kumar and Sh. Babu Lal Sharma are being returned to you for further necessary action at your end. Besides this, you are requested to send a clarification/requisite documents with regard to the queries raised in the column of Remarks given against S.No.01 above so as to proceed further in the matter of offering appointment to the candidates Sh. Mukesh Kumar, a candidate to the post of TGT (Maths).
17. The representation submitted by Pravesh Meena was rejected vide order dated 03.11.2009 which reads as under:-
S.No Name Roll No. and Post Code Subject Deficiency/ irregularities observed. Remarks
2. Pravesh Meena 15212065 152/07 Hindi The candidate has studied Hindi as a subsidiary subject in Part-I and Part-II of his Graduation. On going through the copies of Mark sheets, it has been observed that the candidate has studied Hindi in Part I and II of her graduation and not in Part-III of her Graduation. As the subject Hindi has not been studied in all the parts of his Graduation, the candidate does not seem eligible for the post of TGT (Hindi).
24.Hon’ble High Court then went into the questions framed by it which needed to be answered, which are as follows:-
“(i) whether the W.P.(C) Nos.5835/10 and Conn. Matters Page 5 of 15 corrigendum was incorporated formally by amendment of the Recruitment Rules? If yes what was the effect thereof?
(ii) if the corrigendum remained as an executive instruction, what was the effect thereof?
(iii) whether the corrigendum meant that the subject concerned had to be studied in each year of the three years graduation course with weighted average of 100 marks”.
25. In considering these issues, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the Tribunal has not focussed on these issues, and not even taken note of the Corrigendum dated 13.03.2000, without considering the effect of which the decision ought not to have been arrived at by this Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court also stated that the Tribunal has not considered or even made a reference to the dispute as to what is meant by ‘Elective Subject’, and, therefore, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the Writ Petitions pending before it, quashed the orders of this Tribunal, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the issues as framed by the Hon’ble High Court as cited above.
26. When these bunch cases were again heard and disposed of through the order dated 10.12.2011, the Coordinate Bench disposed of the OAs with directions to the respondents to re-consider the cases of the applicants of the four OAs to a competent academic body like UGC, with regard to the claim of equivalence, and on receipt of a recommendation of such a body, take a final view as regards the eligibility of the applicants to the post and pass a reasoned and speaking order. It was further directed that in the event of a positive outcome, the respondents should offer appointment to the four applicants with prospective effect, if necessary even by creating supernumerary posts.
27. In arriving at these findings, the concurrent Bench had considered other judgments which had been delivered by this Tribunal, in the meanwhile, on 14.07.2009 in OA No. 308/2009 Jai Kumar Vs. GNCTD, as well as the case of Satish Chandra Upadhaya vs. GNCTD and Ors (OA No.532/2008 decided on 27.11.2008). It had also considered the Corrigendum dated 13.03.2000 issued by way of an administrative decision arrived at the Cabinet level, and which had not yet been Gazette notified to have been incorporated in the Recruitment Rules. The argument of the counsels of the present applicants that a Corrigendum cannot take away the effect of the Recruitment Rules was considered, with the submission that an administrative decision contrary to the statutory rules would not be tenable in law, in support of which contention, the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Chairman, Public Service Commission, JandK and Anr. Vs. Sudarshan Singh Jamwal and Anr., (1998) 9 SCC 327 was considered. The Bench had also considered the official respondents contentions that a one year BA (Additional) Exam passed by non-colligate mode subsequently, cannot be considered to be an alternative to three years regular degree course with the ‘Elective subject’ having been studied in all the three years separately.
28. It was argued by the official respondents before the Coordinate Bench that though the Recruitment Rules mentioned the words ‘Elective subject’, since it did not provide a definition of the same, it had been felt necessary to fill in this gap, and, in that sense, the Corrigendum was not contrary to the statutory rules, but only explanatory of the statutory rules, which was not barred under law, since there was a clear nexus between the object sought to be achieved by the Corrigendum, and the process of recruitment which required the requisite competence and expertise in the subject to be determined for the purposes of teaching that subject as a Trained Graduate Teachers. In support of their contentions, the official respondents had cited the cases of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Arvind Kumar, 126(2006) DLT 461 (DB), State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642 and Pratap Singh Chaudhary Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, CW 1954/2002 decided on 30.05.2002. The Bench had considered thereafter the Hon’ble Apex Court’s observations in the case of M. Srinivas Prasad Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2008) 2 SCC (LandS) 1095, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
It is true that Govt. cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, Govt. can fill the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.
29. On the other hand, the Bench had noted that as per the Union of India and Anr. Vs. Central Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service (CE and NES) Group A (Direct Recruits) Association PWD and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC (LandS) 173, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that an executive order passed in contravention of statutory rules would not be in consonance with law. Thereafter, the Bench had considered the cases of Basic Education Board, UP Vs. Upendra Rao, (2008) 1 SCC (LandS) 771, Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 610, and State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Lata Arun AIR 2002 SC 2642, and had cited the Hon’ble Apex Court’s observations in Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC (LandS) 857, to state that judicial review can be exercised in matters concerning prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection only if it is shown that the action of the employer is without the legitimate domain of the employer, and is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions, or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide. The Bench then went on to cite the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and Ors., 2006 (4) SCALE 197 to state that the matters of appointment should be dealt with strictly in terms of the relevant rules and instructions, and the observations of the Apex Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Kaila Kumar Paliwal, (2008) 1 SCC (LandS) 492, in which it has been held that in matters of appointment strict compliance of eligibility conditions of qualification and experience was necessary. Answering one of the issues framed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Bench had gone on to state as follows:-
“9.2 While prescribing alternative essential eligibility conditions for the posts, under the category of simple BA with MIL concerned, the stipulation of the same being as one of the ‘Elective Subjects’ from a recognized University is envisaged as per the relevant Recruitment Rules. However, what is not mentioned in the Rules is the definition of Elective Subject. Thus, the RRs are silent on this aspect. Since, by the corrigendum in question the Executive Authority at its highest level of decision making i.e. the Cabinet, has laid down the criteria defining as to what would constitute an ‘Elective Subject’ in this context is not found to be running counter to the RRs; on the other hand it is in the nature of filling in the gaps, which is permissible as per law.
We also would not buy the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant of the corrigendum being ultra vires in the sense of having no clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In view of the two-fold justification adduced by the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. the prerequisite of ensuring adequate expertise and competence in the teachers, and the need for ensuring uniformity while dealing with candidates coming after passing degrees from different Universities, the same cannot be viewed as irrational.
(Emphasis supplied).
30. The Bench had then distinguished the case from that of Surender Kumar Vs. GNCTD in OA NO.1897/2005 and had gone on to state as follows:-
“Considering the facts and the law on the subject, we do not find the Corrigendum dated 13.03.2000 as legally untenable. In any case, it is also not even a subject of challenge in any of the present OAs. However, the fact of the non-incorporation of these conditions in the advertisement, which has not been rebutted by the respondents, is an important aspect. Even if considering the entire gamut of facts, we do not find this omission per se conferring an entitlement on the applicants, this would certainly be a relevant factor in determining our final view”.
31. Noting that there may be differences from the cases decided by the Tribunal in Jai Kumar Vs. GNCTD and Ors (OA No.308/2009 decided on 14.07.2009) following the case of Anil Dahiya Vs. Union of India and Ors, the Bench had referred to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s doctrine propounded in the case of Collector of Central Excise Culcutta Vs. Alnoori Tobacco Products and Anr. (2004) 6 SCALE 232, that cases cannot be decided by placing blind reliance on an earlier decision, since one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.
32. Respondents have thereafter consulted the UGC and the reply of the UGC furnished on 26.04.2011 has already been reproduced in para 14/above.
33. We have to now, as on today, only decide as to the impact of the U.G.C. advice to the Respondents, and to ensure that the three issues framed by the Honble Delhi High Court in its order as reproduced in para 24/above, have been adequately answered by this Tribunal, in the orders dated 10.12.2011, and today.
34. In all these cases, the applicants had applied against the posts of TGTs in subjects which they had not studied at all the three years of their first/initial regular graduation/degree course, and the distinction lies in the definition of the subjects being called (a) Core subjects, (b) Elective subjects, and (c) Mandatory or Subsidiary subjects, as rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In the case of a Pass or Hons. Course, when a candidate has chosen his or her Core and Elective subjects, he/she has to study that subject in all the three years of his or her degree course. On the other hand, non-elective subjects, which are some times prescribed by the University to be Mandatory or Subsidiary, but compulsory in nature, are prescribed so that they are studied by every student in order to make him or her fit for facing the society in a comprehensive manner. The study of the Mandatory or Subsidiary compulsory subjects does not confer any rights for the applicants to count them as his or her having qualified in the subject. Examples can be many in this regard. Certain B.Sc courses of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (P.C.M., in short) prescribe compulsory English paper to be studied alongside, though its marks do not count towards the declaration of the result. Certain Universities prescribe for the same PCM group a compulsory paper in Statistics also, which though it is a separate subject in itself, is also required to be studied and passed as a part of the Mathematics subject, without which the University considers knowledge in pure Mathematics being incomplete. Similarly, in an Hons. course, applicants choose one particular subject to be his or her elective for the B.A for B.Sc (Hons.) degree, along with other Core Subjects, with which the study of the non-elective, though Core, subjects is relegated into the background, and the student is required to study those non-elective, though core, subjects either only for the first two, or for the full three years of the degree course sometime, and that different combinations of the above formulae exist, depending upon the curriculum prescribed by the University concerned.
35. When a student wants to study only one single subject for his advanced study purposes, some Universities allow a compressed an accelerated B.A. or B.Sc subject or some time even an M.A. or M.Sc subject, to be studied in a compressed form in an accelerated manner in the course of one year, if the applicant can and does pass all the papers associated with the accelerated degree in one single year. In such cases, within a period of four years, the student gets in his hand two degrees, one in which he may not have had a subject as a Core or an Elective subject, and may not have studied the subject in all the three years of his or her Bachelors degree, and the second compressed or accelerated degree, by which he claims to have compensated for not having taken that subject as an elective subject in the main or regular Bachelor’s degree course, and since these are single subject degrees, and passed in an accelerated manner compressed in one year, in one single subject, the candidate feels that he has not only made good the lacuna in his qualification as it existed earlier, but has actually even acquired qualifications better or more than the level prescribed by the authorities. The issue then remains is as to whether the two degrees get combined to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the purpose of employment, or the respondent authorities are within their rights to treat and consider only the first and basic degree of the candidate for the purpose of determining his or her eligibility for a post, and disregard the second compressed or accelerated degree subsequently obtained by the applicant, in order to make good the deficiency in his qualification earlier.
36. There have been judgments of other Benches of this Tribunal also on this point. In a particular case before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.163/2008, Smt. Ruchi Bhandari Vs. Union of India and others, in a judgment delivered on 20.05.2011, this issue was considered by a Division Bench of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of subsequent acquisition of computer qualifications. In that case, the respondents had invited applications for the posts of Programme Assistant (Computer T-4) and had prescribed that the essential qualification as on the closing date of application shall have to be a Bachelors degree in Computer Science, or a higher qualification in Computer Science, as on the date of closing of the applications. The applicant therein had passed a Bachelors degree of B.Sc. in the subjects of Botany, Chemistry and Zoology, and had subsequently obtained Masters degree in Computer Science (called Master in Computer Applications, or MCA in short), issued by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Since her Bachelor’s degree was not in Computer Science, i.e., Bachelors in Computer Applications (BCA in short), in such cases the IGNOU had not considered her application for the degree of MCA, but had processed her candidature in a parallel stream of awarding a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (P.G.D.C.A. in short) on completion of first year of her Master’s degree, and she had been awarded the Advanced Diploma in Computer Applications (A.D.C.A., in short) on completion of the second year of her course. For ample measure, it had been clarified by the IGNOU that as per their prospectus, candidates who have passed their Bachelor’s degree itself in Computer Applications, i.e., BCA are awarded the degree of MCA, and those candidates whose Bachelors degree is not that of BCA, are awarded the PGDCA after first year on completion of their Master’s degree, and ADCA after completion of 2nd year of their Master’s degree course. The applicant therein had vehemently argued that even the University Grants Commission accepts both the PGDCA and ADCA as valid qualifications in the field of Information Technology, and, therefore, her B.Sc degree, combined with PGDCA and ADCA equivalent to MCA, made her eligible to apply against a post where BCA was an essential qualification.
37. The Jodhpur Bench had in that case declined to accept the contention of the applicant that the lacunae of short-comings in her Bachelor qualifications could be made good by her by obtaining a higher or even more advanced qualification in the subject required, as the Recruitment Rules prescribe only the first Bachelor’s degree qualification of the candidate to be considered for consideration of her candidature favourably. It was held in that case that any subsequent addition of qualification, whether at Bachelor’s degree level, or Master’s degree level, or Advance Diploma level, cannot fulfil the lacuna or gap in the prescribed essential qualification or requirement, and the OA had been rejected.
38. On the other hand, this Bench has taken a slightly different view in OA No. 2242/2011 in its judgment delivered on 01.12.2011 Ms. Sneh Lalta Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others as cited in para 20/above also. In that case, the requirement of educational qualification for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) applied for by the applicant was Bachelors degree with Sanskrit as one of the elective subject(s) from the recognized University, and having secured 45% marks in aggregate. The candidate Ms. Sneh Lata had not studied Sanskrit as a subject in all the parts in all the years of her graduation degree level course. She had English and History as her subjects in Part-I, Part-II and Part-III degree course, but she had taken some additional subjects such as Sanskrit and Political Science subsequently, after her degree course, and had obtained a certificate to that effect from the University. The respondents had contended that her subsequently acquired qualification in the additional subject (Sanskrit) was not a part of her regular graduation degree course as a main subject, and, therefore, she may not be considered for eligible for appointment.
39. It was cited before that Bench that elective and main are being used inter-changeably by many universities, and that the elective word may also include main subject as practiced in different Universities. The Applicant had pleaded before the Bench that she had taken Sanskrit as an additional subject in addition to her subjects of English and History as the main Elective, and had passed Sanskrit in addition, and that having passed the additional subject is identical to the papers which are required to be passed by the candidates who take Sanskrit as a regular/main subject at the degree level. The Regulation of the University therein also provided that a candidate who had passed three years graduation/degree course of the University may appear in an additional subject prescribed for the course, in the subsequent examination, except the subject (s), in which she has already passed the course, and a further provision that a candidate who has passed B.Sc./B.Com/BBA/BCA degrees may also appear in additional subject(s) of B.A (Pass course) in such subsequent examination. There was a further clarification issued by the University that Sanskrit (Elective) subject for regular as well as distance mode and Additional subject (Sanskrit) in B.A. is one and the same and equal in all respects.
40. Without going into the question of the candidate Ms. Sneh Lata having acquired the qualification in additional subject in a subsequent examination, which was taken by her after completion of her Bachelors degree, the Bench had taken a view in Para-8 of the judgment as follows:-
8. In view of this declaration made by the University, it is not possible to sustain the conclusion of the respondent authority that the applicant had not studied Sanskrit as an elective subject in all parts for her graduation degree. It is true that she did not study it during the normal course completed between 1999-2003 but she took it as an additional elective subject and cleared all the three papers relating to Part-I, Part-II and Part-III of the subject. Therefore, it could not be said that she did not have a degree with Sanskrit as one of the elective subjects.
41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330 held that even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated that the Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if a mistake has been committed, the same mistake cannot be forced to be perpetuated. In the case of Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. Vs. D.P. Singh (2010) 1 SCC 647, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that when any administrative action comes up for interpretation, the interpretation which renders the action as otiose and redundant should not be applied. In the instant case, it appears that if the subsequent acquisition of requisite qualifications by the candidates concerned is allowed to be counted as a part of their original graduation degree, any prescription of essential qualifications would be rendered otiose and redundant, as anybody can acquire a subsequent qualification in any branch of study, and then claim it to be a part of his or her original graduation/degree study, which would render both the Recruitment Rules, as well as advertisement otiose, which cannot be the intention of law.
42. In these cases, we are now confronted with an order in the case of Ms. Sneh Lata (supra) in which the Bench had not gone into the merits of acquiring separate qualification in the additional subject in a subsequent examination, which could not have been merged in the original degree course, as can be seen from the Para-8 of the judgment re-produced in Para-40 above. However, because of the Contempt Petition filed in that case, as mentioned in Para-20, oral assurance was given in the Court on 19.04.2012, and subsequently the said Ms. Sneh Lata has been appointed as TGT (Sanskrit) and that Contempt Petition had been closed. However, since that case did not decide the issue in hand on merits, we do not consider ourselves bound to follow that judgment. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Gulshan Rai and Ors (2009) 12 SCC 231 that equality is a positive concept, and the benefit of a wrong judgment, even if it has become final and has been implemented, cannot be claimed by others as a matter of right.
43. We are rather bound to follow the judgments delivered by the other Coordinate Bench on 10.12.2011, in which the issues framed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had been examined in detail, but the final question of deciding the equivalence of degree/graduation qualifications had been left to be decided by a competent body like the UGC. We are also bound to follow the judgment delivered by the Jodhpur Bench on 20.05.2011 in Smt. Ruchi Bhandari (supra), in which the merits of a parallel issue had been examined in detail, and which was authored by one of us, and which has attained finality.
44. Therefore, the three issues framed by the Hon’ble High Court, as re-produced in Para-24/above, can be answered as follows:-
i) The Corrigendum dated 13.03.2000 has not yet been Gazette notified, after the Cabinet decision was taken in this regard. However, since the Corrigendum is only clarificatory in nature, and has nexus with the purpose of the Recruitment Rules, and is not contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules, in view of the judgments cited by the coordinate Bench, as referred to in Para-29 above, the clarification on the issue framed by the Hon’ble High Court, as contained in Para 9.2 of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated 21.12.2010 (re-produced in Para-29/above), holds, inasmuch as that the Corrigendum would be applicable to the advertisement issued in pursuance of the Recruitment Rules as Gazette notified, even though the Corrigendum itself has not yet been Gazette notified.
ii) The Hon’ble High Court had framed the second issue that if the Corrigendum remained as an executive instruction, what was the effect thereof. To our mind even this issue, as framed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, has been amply answered by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 10.12.2011, holding to the effect that so long as the Corrigendum has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and is not in contravention of the statutorily notified Recruitment Rules, it would have full effect as a Subordinate Legislation, even though it is still an executive instruction, and has not yet been Gazette notified so far.
iii) The third issue framed by the Hon’ble High Court was as to whether the Corrigendum meant that the subject concerned had to be studied in each year of the three years graduation course, with weighted average of 100 marks, and after having studied the course of events and the case law, we also agree with the concurrent Bench finding dated 10.12.2011 that the net effect of the Corrigendum read with Statutory Recruitment Rules is that the subject required to have been passed at graduation/degree level for the purposes of essential qualification should have been studied by the candidate in all the three years, as an Elective Subject of the first graduation course, with weighted average of 100 marks. As a corollary, it follows that if the prescribed essential qualification has been acquired subsequently, as was held in the Jodhpur Bench judgment also, such subsequent acquisition of essential qualification in a subject, which has not at all been studied in all the three years graduation/degree course, does not amount to possessing the required qualification, and passing of the Bachelors degree in an additional subject does not get merged, as if the candidate had passed his graduation/Bachelors degree in four years in four Elective subjects, instead of three Elective subjects in three years, which are permissible for a regular graduation degree.
45. Having answered the issues framed by the Hon’ble High Court, it would do well for us to answer here the issues framed by the applicants also, which have been re-produced in Paragraphs-15and16 (supra).
46. The first issue raised by the applicants was as to whether in the absence of any special regulations under the University Grants Commission, or specific Rules under the Rajasthan University Rules, can the Respondent authorities ignore the subsequent acquisition of Graduation degree, despite specific directions by this Court. Firstly, we observe that no specific directions have been issued by this Tribunal for any such additional qualification to be recognized as a Graduation/degree qualification, and secondly this argument flies in the face of the clarification since issued by the University Grants Commission, as has been re-produced in Para-14 above. The case of Ms. Sneh Lata (supra) was decided without going into the merits of the case, and is not binding law, as has been clarified above also. Therefore, the respondents will be fully within their rights to ignore any additional or subsequent compressed or accelerated Graduation/degree qualification, or even a higher (Post-Graduate) qualification, which is acquired otherwise than as a regular three years Graduation degree course, with three Elective subjects, all of them having been studied in all the three years of the regular study, though emphasis may be on one Elective Subject in an Honours Degree Course.
47. The second issue framed by the applicants seeking answer from the Tribunal is as to whether the rights of a person can be fettered with by the administrative employment organizations even when the candidate is in possession of a degree duly recognized by all the States, and affiliated to a State University, only on the ground that he has passed all the parts of the said subject in one year rather than in 3 years. The answer to this issue is also in the affirmative, inasmuch as when the requisite Recruitment Rules, as clarified through the Corrigendum issued after a Cabinet decision on this matter, specifically prescribe that the candidate ought to have studied the relevant subject in all the three years of his or her degree/Graduation course, even though acquisition of another Graduation degree in such a manner in an additional subject though any accelerated or compressed degree course may be recognized for any other purposes, it need not be recognized by the respondents for the purposes of recruitment of relevant subject teachers, as that would be against the Recruitment Rules as framed and notified, and clarified through the Corrigendum.
48. The third issue framed by the applicants in this OA was as to whether in the absence of any specific guidelines or regulations prescribed by the UGC, the Government employment organization can reject the candidature of a person at its own whims, without giving any reasonable explanation in this regard. The candidates in this case have resorted to repeated litigation, and their cases have been considered by this Tribunal thrice, by the Hon’ble High Court once, and by the respondent authorities numerous times, and the UGC opinion has also been obtained, as has been re-produced above. Therefore, it does not appear to us that the refusal of the candidature of the applicants before us was at the whims and fancies of the authorities, and that they were not within their rights to reject the candidature, by a strict compliance of the Recruitment Rules, as clarified through the Corrigendum issued.
49. The last contention of the applicants was that the Rules for promotion and the direct recruitment are the same, and, therefore, when on the basis of an Additional degree obtained in the same manner of a compressed or accelerated one year degree course, the others have been promoted in the same establishment, fresh appointment by direct recruitment cannot be denied to the applicants with a compressed or accelerated degree obtained in the same manner. However, it may be observed that a promotion is given to a person who is already within the system, with a lower qualification, and on a lower post. Then when he obtains the requisite qualification by taking a speeded or accelerated compressed course within one year, for the purposes of promotion alone, the additional degree so obtained can be recognized. But those persons, who are still outsiders, and are seeking direct recruitment, cannot claim the benefit of such an interpretation having been taken by the respondents. An applicant for a direct recruitment is subject to the Recruitment Rules for such recruitment, which the promotee is not for the purposes of his promotion, as the promotee is already an insider employee, and has no connection with any such direct recruitment.
50. In the result, all the issues framed by the Hon’ble High Court having been answered, and all the issues posed by the applicants also having been answered, we find that there is no merit in these OAs, and all the four OAs are, therefore, rejected, but there shall be no order as to costs.