Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P(C) 3104/2016

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhati, Advocates for Mr. Devesh Singh, Additional Standing Counsel.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

Judges

G.S Sistani
I.S Mehta, JJ.

Acts

ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Praveen Kumar — W.P.(C) 3104/2016 (Judgment dated 20 July 2016)

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition challenges the Central Administrative Tribunal's (Tribunal) order dated 2 September 2015, which allowed the original application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner (Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board) to consider the respondent's candidature for selection and appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by giving him age relaxation up to 32 years, provided he did not exceed the upper age limit of 32 years as on the cut‑off date (15 January 2010).

Relevant factual and procedural points appearing in the opinion:

An advertisement (No. 004/2009, post code 70/09) invited applications for Teacher (Primary) in MCD. The essential qualifications included (inter alia) a two years diploma/certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed. or its equivalent.
The respondent completed a two‑year diploma in Education in 2008 and applied as an unreserved candidate, submitting requisite documents. He was issued an admit card and appeared in the written examination held on 2 February 2014.
Result and a reject list were published by the petitioner on 5 December 2014; the respondent appeared at serial No. 198 on the reject list and was rejected on the ground of being overage (date of birth recorded as 29 June 1978).
The respondent challenged the rejection before the Tribunal; the Tribunal allowed his OA by order dated 2 September 2015, directing age relaxation for him on the basis described above. This Tribunal order is the subject matter of the present writ petition under Article 226.
On final hearing, the High Court (coram: G.S. Sistani, J. and I.S. Mehta, J.) dismissed the writ petition and directed compliance with the Tribunal's order forthwith. A connected interim application (CM No.13167/2016 for stay) was rendered infructuous and disposed of as such.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the petitioner to grant age relaxation to the respondent (who held a two‑year diploma in Education completed in 2008) by treating his qualification as equivalent to the ETE course and thereby extending to him the benefit of age relaxation up to 32 years (as per the Tribunal's reliance on the decision in Sachin Gupta and Others v. DSSSB).
Whether the Tribunal's order violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India due to alleged non‑application of mind and unequal treatment between candidates who completed the ETE course and those with other nomenclature for equivalent qualifications.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board)

The Tribunal's impugned order suffered from non‑application of mind and was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal incorrectly proceeded on the assumption that the respondent's diploma in Education is equivalent to the ETE course; that equivalence was not established for the purposes of granting age relaxation.
The Tribunal's heavy reliance on the Delhi High Court decision in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7279/2009 (Sachin Gupta and Others v. DSSSB) was misplaced, because that decision dealt expressly with candidates who had completed the ETE course (in 2006–2008) and did not state that candidates with other or “equivalent” qualifications would be entitled to the same relief.
Therefore, the respondent — having completed a diploma in Education (and not the ETE course) — could not be granted the same treatment as those who had completed the ETE course, and his rejection by office order dated 5 December 2014 was argued to be justified on the ground of overage.

Respondent's Arguments (Praveen Kumar)

There was no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and no grounds for interference by the High Court under Article 226.
The Tribunal correctly relied upon the decision in Sachin Gupta (supra) and the respondent should be granted the same benefit as those candidates who had completed the ETE course in the relevant years.
The respondent satisfied the essential qualifications in the advertisement (clause 2) because the advertisement itself permitted a two years diploma/certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed. or its equivalent; equivalence between the ETE course and the diploma in Education was not in dispute, and the petitioner itself permitted the respondent to appear in the examination.
It would be unfair to apply different eligibility/age criteria to candidates holding nominally different but equivalent qualifications (the opinion notes that nomenclature varies by state — e.g., ETE in Delhi, diploma in Education in Bhopal, JVT in Haryana, BLT elsewhere), and identically placed candidates should receive the same relief.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sachin Gupta and Others v. DSSSB (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7279/2009)	Directed that candidates who had completed the ETE course during the years 2006 to 2008 would be granted age relaxation up to 32 years.	The Tribunal relied on this decision to grant similar age relaxation to the respondent. The High Court found the Tribunal's reliance appropriate given that the advertisement allowed equivalent qualifications and that the equivalence between ETE and the respondent's diploma was not disputed; accordingly, the Tribunal's application of Sachin Gupta was upheld.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds on the basis of what the advertisement required, the documents presented by the respondent, and the nature of the Tribunal's order:

The court set out the essential qualifications in the advertisement relevant to the dispute: (I) Senior Secondary (10+2) with 50% marks; (II) two years' diploma/certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed. from recognized institutions or its equivalent; and (III) must have passed Hindi at Secondary level. The advertisement thereby expressly included "or its equivalent" after listing ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed.
It was an undisputed fact that the respondent had completed a two‑year diploma in Education in 2008 and, on the basis of the submitted educational documentary evidence, the petitioner permitted him to appear in the written examination (Admit Card issued), confirming that the petitioner treated his qualification as satisfying the advertised essential qualifications.
The sole ground of rejection of the respondent's candidature in the published reject list dated 5 December 2014 was overage (respondent's date of birth recorded as 29 June 1978), not lack of qualification.
The Tribunal relied upon the decision in Sachin Gupta (which granted age relaxation to candidates who had completed ETE during 2006–2008) and extended the same relief to the respondent. The petitioner argued that Sachin Gupta should not apply because it referred specifically to ETE course holders and not to other nomenclatures; the court noted that nomenclature of equivalent courses varies between states (examples given in the opinion: ETE in Delhi, diploma in Education in Bhopal, JVT in Haryana, BLT in some other state).
Given that the advertisement itself recognized "or its equivalent" and that the petitioner had accepted the respondent's educational qualification for the purpose of permitting him to appear in the examination, the court took the view that it would be inappropriate to apply different age criteria to candidates holding qualifications that are equivalent in substance merely because of differing nomenclature across jurisdictions.
On that basis, the High Court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the law — specifically, applied the principle from Sachin Gupta to persons who were identically placed with respect to educational qualification — and there was no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is dismissed and the Tribunal's order dated 2 September 2015 shall be complied with forthwith.

Direct consequences for the parties:

The petitioner is directed to consider the respondent's candidature for selection and appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi by giving age relaxation up to 32 years, provided he did not exceed the upper age limit of 32 years as on the cut‑off date (15 January 2010), as directed by the Tribunal.
CM No.13167/2016 (stay) was rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

Broader implications: The opinion does not discuss or declare any new legal principle beyond applying the Tribunal's order and the existing precedent (Sachin Gupta) to the facts. The court's decision is framed as the appropriate application of the precedent and the advertised qualification language to the respondent's case; no novel precedent was articulated in the text of the opinion.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Petitioner v. Praveen Kumar

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI th

% Judgment Dated: 20 July, 2016

+ W.P.(C) 3104/2016

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD

..... Petitioner

Through : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Mr.Vinod Kumar Bhati, Advocates for Mr.Devesh Singh, Additional Standing Counsel.

versus

PRAVEEN KUMAR ..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 3104/2016

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 2^ndSeptember, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in short) by which the OA filed by the respondent has been allowed. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner to consider the candidature of the respondent for selection and appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi by giving him age relaxation up to 32 years provided that he does not exceed the upper age limit of 32 years as on the cutoff date i.e on 15^thJanuary, 2010.

2. With the consent of the parties, we set down the petition for final hearing and disposal. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this petition are that in December, 2009, the petitioner published an

advertisement No. 004/2009 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi of Government of NCT of Delhi under post code No. 70/09. The respondent who had completed a two years' diploma in Education in the year 2008, applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD as an unreserved category candidate along with the copies of testimonials pertaining to his qualifications essential for the post. Pursuant to the application made, an Admit Card was issued to the respondent to appear in the written examination. The respondent appeared in the written examination which was held on 2^ndFebruary, 2014. The petitioner vide office order No. 343 dated 5^thDecember, 2014 published the result on the basis of the written examination held on 2^ndFebruary, 2014 whereby the candidates belonging to different categories were provisionally selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

3. On 5^thDecember, 2014, a reject list was published by the petitioner. The respondent was placed at serial No. 198 of this list and his candidature was rejected for the reason of being over age, his date of birth being 29^thJune, 1978. In December, 2014, the respondent approached the Tribunal challenging the reject notice dated 5^thDecember, 2014. This OA was allowed by an order of the Tribunal dated 2^ndSeptember, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') which has led to the filing of this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from non application of mind as the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal has erred in directing the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent at par with those candidates who had completed the ETE course in the year 2008 and with those candidates, who were granted the age relaxation for appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is contended that the

Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the diploma in Education is equivalent to the ETE course. Counsel further contends that a strong reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 7279/2009 in the case of Sachin Gupta and Others v. DSSSB which is misplaced.

5. Learned counsel further contends that the aforesaid matter relates to grant of age relaxation for those candidates who had completed the ETE course in 2006, 2007 and 2008 only. It is thus, contended that the respondent has qualified a diploma in Education which cannot be compared or equated to the ETE course and thus, the judgment in the case of Sachin Gupta (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and the respondent cannot be given the same treatment as those who had completed the ETE course.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the Delhi High Court in the case of Sachin Gupta (supra) had clearly mentioned about the candidates who had completed the ETE course and it has nowhere been mentioned that the candidates having equivalent qualifications would be benefitted and thus the respondent who was overage and had completed the diploma in Education and not the ETE course was rightly rejected by office order No.344 dated 5^th December, 2014.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal which would require interference by this court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel contends that the order of the Tribunal is a well reasoned order. The Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sachin Gupta (supra) and granted the same benefit to the respondent who was eligible as per the advertisement published by the petitioner

as the ETE course and the diploma in Education are both equivalent and thus, it is submitted that it would be highly unfair for different persons to have different eligibility criteria when the course is the same.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. An advertisement was published bearing No. 004/009 seeking applications for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi under post code No. 70/009. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads as under:-

"Name of the Post: Teacher (Primary) in MCD Post Code: 70/09

Number of Vacancies: 4500 (UR-1900, OBC 1044, SC 786, ST-790, including PH (OH-OA/OL/OAL/BL-52, PH(VH-B/LV)-96, EXSM-982)

Essential Qualifications:

1. Sr. Secondary (10+2) or Intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized Board.

2. Two years diploma/Certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed. from recognized institutions or its equivalent.

3. Must have passed Hindi as a subject at Secondary Level.

Desirable Qualification: Computer knowledge. Pay Scale: 9300-34800- plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/-. Group-C Non-Gazetted.

Probation Period: Two years.

Age Limit: 20-27 years. Relaxable for SC/ST - 05 years, OBC-03 years, PH-10 years, PH&SC/ST-15

years. PH&OBC - 13 years. Departmental employees - up to 42 years of age (General), up to 47 years for SC/ST, having 03 years of continuous service in the same line or allied cadres. Relaxable up to 37 years for (General) and up to 42 years for SC/ST - for widows, divorced women and women judicially separated from their husband and who are not remarried."

10. By an 'Addendum to Advertisement No. 04/2009, the number of vacancies for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD were increased from 4500 to 6500, it is not in dispute that the respondent has completed the two years' diploma in Education in the year 2008. Based on clause 2 of the Advertisement, it cannot be disputed that the respondent was eligible as he had obtained a diploma in education. He made an application along with copies of relevant documents pertaining to his qualifications consequent to which he was issued an Admit Card to appear in the written examination which the respondent appeared on 2^ndFebruary, 2014. The candidature of respondent was rejected not because of lack of qualification but on account of the fact that he was overage. The respondent has relied upon the case of Sachin Gupta (supra) where it was directed that the candidates who had completed the ETE course during the years 2006 to 2008 would be granted age relaxation up to 32 years. The respondent has sought a similar concession. The basic argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of Sachin Gupta (supra) would not be applicable to the case of the respondent as it pertains only to ETE course and not any other course including the diploma in Education which has been completed by the respondent. Counsel submits that there was no material before the Tribunal to reach to the conclusion that the persons who had completed the diploma in

Education course suffer the same predicament which was considered by the court in the case of Sachin Gupta (supra)

11. We find that based on the advertisement, the essential qualifications which have been prescribed for the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD which a candidate required were as follows:

I a Senior Secondary (10 + 2) or intermediate or its equivalent with 50% marks from a recognized board.

II Two years' diploma/certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.El.Ed. from recognized institutions or its equivalent.

III Must have passed Hindi as a subject at Secondary Level.

12. There is an agreement between the parties which is also borne out from the fact that the respondent was permitted to appear in the examination as far as the educational qualifications were concerned, which means that he was eligible. The equivalence of the ETE course and the diploma in Education is not in dispute. However, in Delhi, the nomenclature is certificate in ETE course while in other states a different nomenclature is adopted, for example in Bhopal, it is diploma in Education, in Haryana, it is JVT and similarly, BLT is in some other state. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there cannot be a difference in criteria for the same post for different states as this was not the objection in terms of the advertisement and in case, a candidate who had completed ETE course from Delhi is to be given age relaxation as per the decision in Sachin Gupta (supra), the same age relaxation should be provided to the persons who are identically placed in terms of educational qualification.

13. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that there cannot be different age criteria for different candidates when the educational qualification and equivalence thereof stands recognized by the petitioner herein. In our view, the Tribunal had correctly applied the law to the

facts of this case. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Tribunal shall be complied with forthwith.

CM No.13167/2016 (stay)

14. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application has been rendered infructuous. The same stands disposed of as such.

G.S.SISTANI

(JUDGE)

I.S. MEHTA

(JUDGE)

JULY 20, 2016

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Petitioner v. Praveen Kumar

Case Summary: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Praveen Kumar — W.P.(C) 3104/2016 (Judgment dated 20 July 2016)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board)

Respondent's Arguments (Praveen Kumar)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Petitioner v. Praveen Kumar

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience