25 March 2019 – Delhi High Court (Division Bench) – Promotion to the post of Commandant in C.R.P.F. – Adverse A.P.A.R. – Marks awarded of “Good” but A.P.A.R. rating of “below good” given by the Reporting Officer – Reviewing Officer, in order to match the rating, slashed the marks by 50% - held, unacceptable and illogical – A.P.A.R. rating upgraded to “good” and directions given to C.R.P.F. to grant all consequential benefits both monetary as well as seniority – C.R.P.F. was also directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass consequential orders [Bijendra Singh Bhati Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W. P. (C) 774/2017)]

Bijendra Singh Bhati, Deputy Commandant, CRPF, was given 5.26 marks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (A.P.A.R.) of the period from 01.04.2011 to 22.09.2011 by its Reporting Officer. 5.26 Marks falls in the slab of “good” rating but due to inadvertence, the Reporting Officer gave the rating as “below good”. The aforesaid mistake came to the knowledge of the Reviewing Officer at the time of review. Reviewing Officer, instead of upgrading the rating to “good”, slashed the marks to almost 50% in order to match the rating. The said “below good” rating resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Commandant.

Being aggrieved by the “below good” rating and denial of promotion, Bijendra Singh Bhati preferred a writ petition [Bijendra Singh Bhati Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W. P. (C) 774/2017)] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Anuj Aggarwal & Saurabh Ahuja, Advocates, counsels for Bijendra Singh Bhati, submitted that Mr. Bhati is an excellent officer and has throughout remained outstanding. It was also submitted that the Reviewing Officer, instead of giving the grade of “good”, has wrongly slashed the marks by 50% and the said procedure was unheard of. Grades (like outstanding, very good, good or below good) are given on the basis of marks and the marks are not given (or matched) with the grade, which was erroneously done in the present case.

Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. S. Mehta, Delhi High Court, accepted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and, consequently, allowed the writ petition. Hon’ble Court held that the procedure of matching marks with the grades was unacceptable and illogical. Hon’ble Court directed the CRPF as under:-

“18. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28^th July 2016 passed by the Respondent No. 2 to the extent that it rejects the Petitioner’s request for upgradation APAR for the period from 1^st  April, 2011 to 22^nd September, 2011 as “good” is hereby set aside.

19. A direction is issued to the Respondents to upgrade the APAR of the Petitioner for the aforementioned period 1^st April, 2011 to 22^nd September, 2011 to “good” and extend to him all consequential benefits both monetary as well as seniority within eight weeks from today. Correspondingly, the impugned notification dated 20^th October, 2016, which failed to promote the Petitioner to the post of Commandant (2-IC) is set aside to that limited extent that the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass consequential orders in that regard within a period of 12 weeks from today.

20. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.”

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2019032815537616692019%20Del%20DB%20-%20BIJENDRA%20SINGH%20BHATI.pdf

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

14 March 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) - Recruitment on the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code - 90/17) with 919 vacancies – Challenge to 5 questions asked by DSSSB in the written examination – CAT directed the DSSSB to refer the disputed 5 questions [question Nos. 44, 119, 182, 183 & 200] to an Expert Committee – Expert Committee shall give its report within 1 week – further steps in selection to be taken after the report of Expert Committee is obtained by the DSSSB

Vide Advertisement dated 20.12.2017, DSSSB invited applications, inter alia, for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code = 90/17) with 919 vacancies. On 16.09.2018, written examination was conducted by the DSSSB. On 09.01.2019, final answer key was uploaded by the DSSSB wherein the answers/options to 5 questions [question Nos. 44, 119, 182, 183 & 200], as given by the DSSSB in the answer key, were wrong.

22 candidates, being aggrieved by the aforesaid 5 questions, challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, by way of 22 separate Original Applications (lead OA No. 580/2019).

Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the applicants, argued that the candidates/applicants should not suffer/penalized for giving the right answer. It was also argued that the text books, published by the Delhi Government itself, shows that the answers given by the applicants were correct answers/options.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy & Hon’ble Member (A) Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the applicants, directed the DSSSB to refer the disputed 5 questions to an Expert Committee, which shall give its report within 1 week. It was also declared/directed by the Hon’ble CAT that further steps in selection shall be taken by the DSSSB only after the report of Expert Committee is obtained by the DSSSB.

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2019031615527517632019%20CAT%20-%20Final%20-%20Harish%20Kumar.pdf

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/

08 March 2019 – Delhi High Court (Division Bench) – Special Education Teacher – Failure on the part of candidate in filling/bubbling the Application Form/OMR Sheet – Column in the OMR sheet pertaining to CTET qualification left blank – High Court directed the DSSSB to consider the candidature of the candidate for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher [W.P. (C) No. 5777/2018; Date of Order = 08 March 2019; “Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Preeti Sharma & Anr.”]

Pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/13, Ms. Preeti Sharma applied for the post of the Special Education Teachers (Post Code 01/13). In the application form/OMR sheet, Ms. Preeti Sharma inadvertently left the CTET column blank despite the fact that she was CTET qualified and had CTET pass certificate prior to the prescribed cutoff date. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), consequently, rejected the candidature of Ms. Preeti Sharma. Being aggrieved, she preferred an Original Application (O.A. No.1383/2013) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Vide Order dated 21.02.2017, the said Original Application was allowed and the DSSSB was directed to consider the candidature of Ms. Preeti Sharma. DSSSB, instead of implementing the said Order dated 21.02.2017, challenged the same before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 5777/2018].

Anuj Aggarwal & Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates, appearing for Ms. Preeti Sharma, submitted that a bonafide mistake may not be awarded with the punishment of rejection of candidature. It was also submitted that there is acute scarcity of qualified Special Education Teachers in the Delhi Government Schools and, therefore, the candidature of a qualified candidate may not be rejected on such trivial ground.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi & Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Chawla, vide Order dated 08 March 2019, accepted the submissions made on behalf of Ms. Preeti Sharma. It was also observed by the Hon’ble Court that there is a dire need of appointing qualified Special Education Teachers in Delhi Government Schools. The Hon’ble Court directed the DSSSB to consider the candidature of Ms. Preeti Sharma for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher.

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2019031615527502912019%20Del%20DB%20-%20PREETI%20SHARMA.pdf

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/

08 March 2019 – Delhi High Court – Challenge to CTET (December, 2018) Question Paper – Delhi High Court issued notice and directed the CBSE to consider/examine the disputed 4 questions with an expert body and, accordingly, submit their report/reply – [Yogesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. CBSE; WPC No. 1924/2019; Date of Order = 08 March 2019]

20 Candidates challenged the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET - December 2018) Question Paper before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the ground that the answer key provided by the CBSE contains incorrect answers/options to the questions asked in the written examination.

Anuj Aggarwal and Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates, counsels for the candidates/petitioners, argued that the candidates should not suffer for giving the right answer. It was also argued that the text books, published by the Delhi Government itself, shows that the answers given by the applicants were correct answers/options.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, Delhi High Court, appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to consider/examine the disputed 4 questions [Ques. No. 61, 66, 85 and 95 of the Master Question Paper Set] with an expert body and, accordingly, submit their report/reply. Matter is now listed for hearing on 24.04.2019.

Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) is a mandatory qualification required for appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary as well as TGT). CBSE is the examining body which conducts the CTET. CTET is usually conducted twice every year but, however, CBSE failed to conduct the CTET in the year 2017. After September, 2016, CBSE conducted the CTET in December, 2018, i.e. after a gap of two years. The written test was conducted on December 09, 2018.

More than 17 lakhs candidates had appeared for the CTET 2018 examination. A total of 1,78,273 out of 10,73,545 candidates qualified for Primary School Teacher (Class 1 to 5) Exam. A total of 1,26,968 out of 8,78,425 candidates qualified the CTET Middle School Teacher (Class 6^th to 8^th) Exam. CTET pass percentage in Primary School is 17% and in Middle School is 15%.

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=59287&yr=2019

25 February 2019 – Recruitment on the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code - 90/17) – Challenge to 5 questions asked by DSSSB in the written examination – Notice issued by the CAT to DSSSB to give clear reply

Vide Advertisement dated 20.12.2017, DSSSB invited applications, inter alia, for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code = 90/17). On 16.09.2018, written examination was conducted by the DSSSB. On 09.01.2019, final answer key was uploaded by the DSSSB wherein the answers/options to 5 questions, as given by the DSSSB in the answer key, were wrong.

22 Candidates, being aggrieved by the aforesaid 5 questions, challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, by way of 22 separate Original Applications [lead OA No. 580/2019].

Anuj Aggarwal, Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha and Saurabh Ahuja, Advocates, counsels for the applicants, argued that the candidates/applicants should not suffer/penalized for giving the right answer. It was also argued that the text books, published by the Delhi Government itself, shows that the answers given by the applicants were correct answers/options.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy & Hon’ble Member (A) Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the applicants, directed the DSSSB to file a clear reply to all the 5 disputed questions. Hon’ble Bench further observed as under:-

“It is represented on behalf of the respondents that there is no likelihood of the finalization of the list at least up to 31.03.2019. Hence, we do not feel the necessity of passing any interim order at this stage.”

Matter is now listed on 14.03.2019 for hearing.

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2019030915521400082019%20CAT%20-%20HARISH%20KUMAR.pdf

28 February 2019 - Delhi School Tribunal (DST) - Illegal termination of service of 2 contractual primary teachers of DAV Public School, Masjid Moth, Delhi (unrecognized school) by way of refusal of duty – DST vide Order dated 28.02.2019, declared the termination of service as illegal and directed the school to reinstate the teachers in service

Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the teachers, submitted that termination of service of the teachers in violation of Rule 118 & Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 is illegal. It was submitted that even in case of refusal of duty or alleged abandonment of service, the school was required to comply with the principles of natural justice and conduct enquiry.

Shri. V.K. Maheshwari, Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi, accepted the submissions made on behalf of the teachers and declared the termination of service as illegal and directed the school to reinstate the teachers in service.

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2019030915521270302019%20DST%20-%20Komal%20&%20Dapinder.pdf