Ms. Jainish Kumari Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. - Court Judgment

Aruna Suresh, J.

1. Writ Petitioner Ms. Jainish Kumari has challenged the order of Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') dated 31st May, 2004 dismissing OA No. 2800 of 2003 observing that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications equivalent to B.Ed. Accordingly Tribunal declined to quash order No. PS/DE/ 2002/792-793 2002/792-793 dated 13.03.2002 and Order No. 6670 dated 20.06.2002 passed by the Directorate of Education.

2. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred as 'DSSSB') had issued an advertisement on 12th June, 1998 inviting applications for filling up vacancies of the teachers including two posts of Post Graduate Teachers (Sanskrit) in the category of women. Petitioner who after completing her metriculation, had obtained the degree of Shastri from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and had obtained Diploma in Training in the subject of Sanskrit from the District Education and Training Institution under the Directorate of Education, Haryana Chandigarh (Language Teaching Course). and had also qualified her M.A. Examination in Sanskrit Literature from Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar, applied for the post of PGT in response to the said advertisement. On 22.08.1999 she appeared in the written examination and on 5.10.1999 she was declared successful. She ranked at Seriall No. 2. She appeared in the office of the respondent No. 3 Along with her testimonials on 27.11.1999. However, she was not issued appointment letter as Deputy Director, Directorate of Education (Respondent No. 3) held that she did not possess the requisite qualifications to be appointed as PGT and her candidature was rejected on the plea that she only possessed Diploma in Training which was not equivalent to B.Ed. and according to the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 her diploma and training was equivalent to Elementary Teacher Education and she was qualified only to teach primary classes.

3. Petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the Directorate of Education, filed OA No. 2350/2000 before the CAT challenging the rejection of her candidature for appointment. However, the said OA was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi being Writ Petition No. 3590 of 2001. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 10th October, 2001 with the following directions:

(a) Petitioner to submit her diploma certificate Along with all other relevant documents, if any, to support her case Along with her representation to Director of Education within two weeks.

(b) On submission of the documents and representation, the respondent No. 2 would forward the case Along with his own opinion, if any, within one week to Chairman, University Grants Commission (in short 'UGC') for determination of equivalence of petitioner's diploma and whether it satisfied the eligibility criteria.

(c) Chairman, UGC after examination of the papers forwarded to him would forward the Commission's opinion to the Directorate of Education, respondent No. 2 within two weeks.

(d) The appointment of the petitioner to the post of PGT would be considered on the basis of the opinion so received within one month from the receipt of the report of UGC. None of the authorities gave positive opinion in favor of the petitioner resulting into rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of PGT.

4. The petitioner made various representations to UGC, NCTE and other bodies from whom opinions were sought by the respondents continuously and had been getting replies from the concerned departments.

5. The petitioner also filed application for quashing contempt proceedings being C.P. No. 225 of 2002 in this Court. She also filed Writ Petition No. 7563 of 2003 for quashing of the orders of the respondents dated 13.03.2002 and 20.06.2002 but she withdrew it and filed another OA No. 2800 of 2003 under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. This OA was heard and finally dismissed on 31st May, 2004 by the Division Bench of the CAT.

6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.05.2004 of the Division Bench of CAT passed in OA No. 2800/2003 and order No. PS/DE/2002/792-793 dated 13.03.2002 and Order No. 6670 dated 20.06.2002 passed by the Directorate of Education and sought directions against respondent No. 2 to appoint her to the post of PGT with all consequential benefits.

7. Both the parties have made their submissions in detail.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner possessed First Class Post Graduate Degree in Sanskrit and Oriental Training (O.T.) which is at par with B.Ed. and she was selected after successfully clearing the written examination and as per the advertisement the qualifications required was Masters Degree from recognized University or equivalent in the subject in which the teacher was to be selected. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 was not applicable in the case of the petitioner and the Association of Indian Universities (hereinafter referred to as 'AIU') who was in fact the Competent Authority for determining the equivalency was called upon by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to opine if O.T. (Sanskrit) was comparable to B.Ed. She has emphasised that AIU vide its letter dated 19th March, 2002 opined that O.T. (Sanskrit) may be comparable to B.Ed. for appointment to the post of language teacher only. She has given meaning to the 'Language Teacher' as Language Teacher for all classes. thereforee, she has prayed for quashing the impugned order and directions to be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as PGT.

9. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Counsel for the Respondents has opposed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification as per the advertisement as she did not hold the qualification of B.Ed. for being considered for appointment as PGT and thereforee her candidature was rightly rejected by Respondent No. 2 (Directorate of Education). She further submitted that from the perusal of the advertisement appearing as CP Code-15 in Dainik Jagran, New Delhi dated 12th June 1998 it was clear that the advertisement in question was for the post of PGT Lecturer in Sanskrit language. She has also referred to the advertisement, CP Code-14/98 appearing in Dainik Jagran, New Delhi dated 12th June 1998 which was for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (hereinafter referred to as 'TGT') in various languages including Hindi and Sanskrit.

10. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Counsel for the respondents while referring to the Recruitment Rules further explained that the hierarchy of teachers in the schools commenced from Nursery Teacher, Assistant Teacher, TGT and PGT. The Nursery Teachers teach Nursery classes, Assistant Teachers teach primary classes, TGT Teachers teach the middle classes up to to Xth class whereas PGT teachers teach students of XIth and XIIth classes and these PGTs are also referred to as Lecturers. Learned Counsel for the respondents while referring to the certificate issued by the AIU averred that the qualifications in essential language as possessed by the petitioner could be considered comparable to B.Ed. for the post of language teacher only that is TGT as they are also notified as Language Teachers and that as per the advertisement in question, the petitioner's candidature was being considered for the post of Lecturer language equivalent to PGT and thereforee the certificate issued by AIU does not make the petitioner eligible for the post of PGT.

11. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the provisions of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as ?NCTE Act?) demonstrate that the O.T. Sanskrit course is an elementary course and thereforee such a course is not intended for a person to teach higher classes.

12. Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to State of Haryana and Ors. v. Indira Kumari : AIR2003SC3875 , Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1990 (2) SLR 458.

13. The only question to be determined by us in the present Writ Petition is whether petitioner possessed the requisite qualification as per the Rules of Delhi Education Act to be appointed as PGT (Sanskrit). This issue was considered by the CAT in the impugned order under challenge before us and the OA was dismissed vide order dated 31st May, 2004 with the following observations:

15. We have already referred to the order passed by the Delhi High Court. It was found that it was difficult to assume the role of expert body for determination of equivalence of Diploma held by the applicant. It is in this backdrop that the entire matter came up for consideration before Association of Indian Universities. On 19.3.2002, the Association of Indian Universities considered the Language Teachers Course of Sanskrit comparable to B.Ed. and for appointment to the post of Language Teacher only. The applicant has not assailed the said letter. If the expert body had found that applicant was not qualified to be considered as B.Ed. for discharging the duties of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit), keeping in view the above said facts, it would be improper to quash the impugned order.

14. An advertisement was issued by DSSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the post of Lecturer/PGT vide Code 15/98 appearing in Dainik Jagran, New Delhi dated 12th June 1998. The educational qualifications which were required to be possessed by a candidate were as follows:

(a) Masters Degree or in respect of Lecturer (Hindi/Sanskrit) its equivalent having specialised degree from any recognized University.

(b) Degree/Diploma in Training or teaching with experience.

15. Petitioner who after obtaining Degree of Shastri from Sampurnanad Sanskrit University, Varanasi did Diploma in Training in Sanskrit subject. This Diploma in Training, is also known as Language Teaching Course from the District Education and Training Institution, under the Directorate of Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. She also possesses M.A. in Sanskrit Literature from Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar. She was disqualified because she did not fulfill the second educational qualification i.e. Degree/Diploma in Training or teaching with experience, despite the fact that she was successful in qualifying the written examination held in pursuance of the said advertisement by the DSSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 22nd August, 1999 and the result was declared on 5th October, 1999.

16. One of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications of B.Ed. because as per the provision of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 a person possessing diploma in training was equivalent to elementary education training and could only teach primary classes. However, these submissions would not help in present case since provisions of the said Act which came into force in 1996 are not applicable. While disposing of earlier Writ Petition of the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 3590/2001, the Division Bench of this Court did consider if regulation of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 were applicable in the present case and observed as follows:.We are also of the view that NCTE regulations which had come into being in 2000 would not be attracted to applicant case as she was selected in 1999.

17. Respondents being party to the said Writ cannot reagitate this issue in the present Writ Petition before us.

18. In compliance of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10th October, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 3590/2001, respondent No. 2 forwarded the case of the petitioner Along with her documents with his own version to Chairman, UGC with his Letter No. PS/DE/2001/8134-A dated 7th December, 2001 to the UGC seeking their opinion. University Grants Commission by its letter No. F4-1/2002 (CPP-1) dated 20th February, 2002 communicated its inability to give any opinion for the following reasons:

With reference to your letter No. PS/DE/2002/308 dated 29.01.2002 I am directed to inform you that diplomas do not come under the purview of the University Grants Commission and equivalency is being dealt with by AIU (Association of Indian Universities) 16 Kotla Marg, New Delhi. You are thereforee requested to approach AIU in the matter.

19. Consequently the department contacted AIU. In its letter dated 19th March, 2002 addressed to respondent No. 2 AIU opined that Language Teachers Course (Sanskrit) may be considered comparable to B.Ed. for the appointment to the post of Language Teachers only. The relevant contents of the said letter is reproduced as follows:

It has been observed from the copies of the certificates produced by the candidate Ms. Jainish Kumari that she has passed Shastri Examination from Sampurnand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, which is a recognized Bachelor Degree. She has further obtained Masters of Arts Degree in Sanskrit Literature from Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar, a Statutory University in the country. Thereafter, she has passed the Language Teachers Course (Sanskrit) of the Department of Education, Government of Haryana. As per the Department of Education, Government of Haryana letter dated 25th July, 1979 (copy enclosed), the Language Teacher's Course examination of the Department of Education, Government of Haryana, is accepted for appointment for the post of Language Teacher in Sanskrit. In a similar case, the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Haryana vide letter dated 20th December, 2001 (copy enclosed) has clarified that the Language Teacher Course is meant for appointment as a Language Teacher. In case Sanskrit is one of the Teaching subjects at B.Ed., Language Teacher Course is treated at par with B.Ed. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak has also accepted the Language Teacher Course examination as equivalent to B.Ed. with Sanskrit as a teaching subject provided the course is done after B.A. with Sanskrit as a subject. In the context of the foregoing facts, Language Teacher's Course (Sanskrit) may be considered comparable to B.Ed. for appointment to the post of Language Teacher only.

20. In view of the opinion received from the expert authorities, various representations made by the petitioner on different dates i.e. 27.11.1999, 10.02.2000, 26.03.2002 were also rejected.

21. It seems that some clarification was sought from Directorate of Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, reply to which was addressed to Shri Vijay Kumar, Village and PO Nahara, District Sonepat, Haryana which is of 23rd March, 2000. Perusal of this letter indicates that in 1987 the said course namely O.T./LTC was conducted by the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana which was named as Language Teachers Course Examination. In 1987 this course was renamed as Diploma in Language Teaching in Haryana and the holders of the course/Diploma after being qualified are competent to teach from 6th to 10th classes. This letter also indicates that the Diploma which the petitioner holds from Haryana only qualifies her to teach classes from VIth to Xth.

22. We have also to examine the Recruitment Rules for various posts of teachers in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment of Lecturers in various posts including Sanskrit are:

1. Masters' Degree (or its equivalent Oriental Degree in the case of Lecturer Sanskrit and Hindi) from any recognized University.

2. Degree/Diploma in Training/Education with mandatory condition that the candidate would acquire B.Ed./B.T. qualification within a period of three years from the date of his/her joining.

23. Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules relates to the qualification required for appointment of Language Teacher (Sanskrit). These requirement are:

Degree with Sanskrit as an elective subject with not less than 45% marks in aggregate with Degree/Diploma in Training/Education (OR) Oriental Degree in Sanskrit with not less than 45% marks in aggregate, equivalent to B.A. or above with Degree/Diploma or equivalent.

24. It is asserted by the petitioner that her diploma in Training in the subject of Sanskrit is equivalent to B.Ed. and thereforee she possessed the requisite qualifications to be considered for appointment as PGT.

25. As discussed above, AIU has opined that Language Teacher Course Sanskrit may be considered comparable to B.Ed. for appointment to the post of Language Teacher only. They have not found her qualification equivalent to B.Ed. for appointment to the post of PGT but comparable to B.Ed. only for appointment to the post of Language Teacher only. In other words, the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for being appointed as a TGT but not a PGT.

26. The Court cannot assume the role of experts for determination of the equivalence of diploma held by the petitioner as it falls within the domain of experts and thereforee it is for the appropriate expert body to determine the equivalence of a qualification. The qualifications prescribed under the Rules for teaching different classes from primary to XIIth standard are different. The specialized training which is given to the teachers for teaching Nursery students is different from B.Ed. course which gives training to the teachers for teaching higher classes. Similarly, Teacher's Training Course equips the teachers for teaching middle classes. This is keeping in mind the nature of teaching required to be imparted to different classes and different age groups of students. The nature of training imparted to the teachers for grant of Teacher's Training Certificate/Diploma or B.Ed. or Nursery Training cannot be compared with each other as there is no parity between them. thereforee, it is in the wisdom of the authorities concerned to decide if a particular qualification held by a candidate, the petitioner in the present case, can be considered as equivalent to B.Ed. for being appointed as PGT/Lecturer. Since the opinion of the experts of AIU does not favor the petitioner, we, while exercising the writ jurisdiction can't interfere in the opinion given by AIU that Diploma in Teacher Training held by the petitioner is comparable to B.Ed. for appointment as TGT.

27. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. : AIR2001SC3058 to contend that her diploma in training is equivalent to Ph.D. In the said case the appellant had already obtained M.Phil and PhD. Degrees from Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and at the time of his admission to M.Phil leading to Ph.D. Course in the department of Philosophy, the question of equivalence in qualification was examined and it was found that he possessed the requisite qualification to be admitted to M.Phil leading to Ph.D. Course. But when he applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Philosophy he was refused appointment on the ground that he did not possess Masters Degree though he had worked in the University for about 11 years. It was under these circumstances that it was held by the Apex Court that the B.A. (Hons.) Degree possessed by the appellant was equivalent to Masters Degree of the AMU and thereforee appellant in the said case was entitled to be considered for the post of Lecturer (Philosophy). In that case the University itself had reviewed its own decision and had agreed to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer (Philosophy) observing that petitioner held the requisite qualifications of B.A. (Hons.) degree which is equivalent to Masters Degree. It was observed petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer years' back only after his B.A. (Hons.) Degree was considered to be equivalent to Masters Degree in the subject. thereforee, the petitioner therein could not have been rejected appointment as Lecturer (Philosophy) by the Selection Committee by adopting its own norms for considering the qualifications of a candidate. This judgment in no manner helps the petitioner before us.

28. In Yogesh Kumar and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Ors. : [2003]2SCR662 , wherein the advertisement and the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Municipal Corporation were under consideration it was observed that:

Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidate with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTRC-pass candidates. It is open to the recruitment authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made.... B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the nature of the training imparted for grant of certificate and for degree is totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever.

It was further held that:

It is for the authorities concerned to decide if B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers.

29. In the said case candidates who were holding B.Ed. Degree qualification applied in response to advertisement, were considered as not eligible to be appointed because the authority chose to restrict the requisite qualification of TTC only.

30. Thus, we conclude that the petitioner who possessed Language Teacher Course/Oriental Training after completing her graduation cannot be considered to be holding an equivalent diploma to that of B.Ed. for appointment as PGT since she did not possess the requisite qualification. The post of PGT is equivalent to Lecturer and the PGT is required to teach XIth and XIIth classes. According to the rules of Delhi Education Act and also the opinion given by AIU, her qualifications have been rightly found to be comparable with B.Ed. required for appointment of Language Teacher only. In other words, petitioner's educational qualifications do not entitle her for consideration for appointment to the post of PGT. Petitioner being possessed of less qualifications cannot be considered for appointment for the post of PGT. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing the educational qualifications of the petitioner are reasonable and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

31. We, thereforee, do not find any merit in the Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed.