B. Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed.; and B.Ed. (Special Education) is a valid qualification for appointment on the post of TGT English (Male) in DOE – CAT directed the DOE to issue appointment letter and grant all consequential benefits, including seniority

22 November 2022

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

B. Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed.; and B.Ed. (Special Education) is a valid qualification for appointment on the post of TGT English (Male) in DOE – CAT directed the DOE to issue appointment letter and grant all consequential benefits, including seniority

 

In the year 2017, Mr. Mohit Kumar applied for appointment on the post of TGT English (Male) in DOE. He qualified the written examination but, vide rejection Order dated 07.05.2019, Mr. Mohit Kumar’s candidature was rejected by the DSSSB. Ground for rejection was that Mr. Mohit Kumar had B. Ed. (Special Education) degree whereas the essential qualification, as per the advertisement, was B. Ed. degree.

 

On 06.10.2022, Mr. Mohit Kumar filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 2928/2022) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

 

Vide Order dated 22.11.2022, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the Director of Education, GNCTD to issue appointment letter to Mr. Mohit Kumar and grant him all the consequential benefits, including seniority. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 22.11.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“4. Since, there is not even an iota of difference in the facts and the issues involved, we allow the present O.A. The result notice dated 07.05.2019 bearing No. F.No.163/Result/TGT(English)/Male/Int. Cell/DSSSB/2018-19/2229-38, is quashed and set aside to the extent that it rejects the candidature of the present applicant.

 

5. Subsequent to this direction, a further direction is issued to the respondents that in the event of the applicant meeting all other qualifications and eligibility criteria including merit in the selection examination, give him appointment to the post of TGT Male (English) with all consequential benefits including seniority at par with the candidates who were selected pursuant to the said examination. However, the consequential benefits so awarded shall only be on notional basis.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022123116724924482022%20CAT%20-%20Mohit%20Kumar.pdf

 

[Mohit Kumar Vs. DSSSB & Ors., O.A. No. 2928/2022, decided on 22.11.2022]

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Appointment on the post of PGT (Computer Science) - Rejection of candidature on account of failure to upload the correct Experience Certificate in the e-dossier – CAT directed the DSSSB/Delhi Government to issue appointment letter with 25% back salary

15 December 2022

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

Appointment on the post of PGT (Computer Science) - Rejection of candidature on account of failure to upload the correct Experience Certificate in the e-dossier – CAT directed the DSSSB/Delhi Government to issue appointment letter with 25% back salary

 

In the year 2017, Ms. Khushboo Singhal applied for appointment on the post of PGT (Computer Science) Female [Post Code 151/17]. She had all the requisite qualifications, including 1 year teaching experience, as required in the Advertisement. Ms. Singhal had experience of teaching in the following 2 schools: -

1.     The Cambridge International School = 11 Months and 25 days experience

2.     Mamta Modern Sr. Sec. School = 1 Year 2 months and 25 days experience

 

Ms. Khushboo Singhal appeared in the written examination and was shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier. However, at the time of uploading the e-dossier, Ms. Singhal inadvertently uploaded her experience certificate of Cambridge International School, which was less than 1 year teaching experience.

 

On 27.03.2019, DSSSB rejected the candidature on the ground that the applicant had uploaded an experience certificate wherein the teaching experience was less than 1 year.

 

Being aggrieved, Ms. Singhal filed an Original Application [OA No. 1359/2019] before the CAT. She, inter alia, contended that other candidates were given 2^nd opportunity to upload the deficient documents but no such opportunity was given to her. She contended that the action on the part of DSSSB was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

 

Vide Order dated 15 December 2022, CAT held as under: -

“12. In the light of the aforesaid decision, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has itself dealt with the issue No. 1 that second opportunity has not been given to the applicant qua the rejection of the claim, though it was given to other candidates as highlighted above which is itself arbitrary and discriminatory in nature as well as irrational. The said aspect has been dealt in para 9 of the aforesaid decision. Even otherwise, the principle of natural justice has grossly been violated inasmuch as can be seen for the Rejection Order itself the representations of the applicant have not been dealt with and as such principle of natural justice have not been followed.

 

13. In that view of the matter, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of PGT (Computer Science) Female, Post Code 151/17 and issue necessary order of appointment subject to verification of the aforesaid certificate, if found, in order and also compliance of other procedural formalities in the unreserved category. However, it is directed that the applicant shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay. The Appointment Order should be issued within a period of three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which the applicant shall also be entitled to 25% of the arrears of salary. The OA is also allowed with all consequential benefits (such as emoluments) thereto. No order as to costs.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022123016724076832022%20CAT%20-%20Khushboo%20Singhal.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) to re-consider launching 3 months online bridge course for B.Ed. (Special Education) students of Jamia Millia Islamia – Delhi High Court

14 November 2022

Delhi High Court

 

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) to re-consider launching 3 months online bridge course for B.Ed. (Special Education) students of Jamia Millia Islamia – Delhi High Court

 

Jamia Millia Islamia, a Central University, started B. Ed. (Special Education) Learning Disability [B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD)] course in the year 2001. For conducting B.Ed. (Special Education) course, a university needs recognition from Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). Jamia Millia Islamia, however, did not have the recognition for conducting B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) course from RCI till the year 2011. From 2001 till 2011, around 300 students passed out from Jamia Millia Islamia with B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) degree.

 

In 2013, 3 months online bridge course was conducted by Jamia Millia Islamia, with the approval of RCI, for the students, who did B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) during the period from 2001-2011, so that their degrees could be regularized. Only 23 students could avail the benefit of the said 3 months online course because no personal initiation/email/SMS was given by the University to the students regarding the said course.

 

One student namely, Mrs. Garima Midha, who did B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) from Jamia in the year 2003-2004, requested the University as well as RCI to re-launch the 3 months online course for her and other similarly situated students. University agreed to the request of Mrs. Midha but RCI refused to allow the University to re-conduct the course.

 

Being aggrieved, Mrs. Midha filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 13749/2022] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 14.11.2022, allowed the writ petition with the following directions: -

 

“10. On above representation, RCI’s stand, as borne out from their counter affidavit, is that the bridge course was only a one-time concession and since it has been discontinued, “the same cannot be conducted for the sake of the petitioner, who is ignorant of the statutory status of the answering respondent.”

 

11. While RCI is conscious of the predicament of the students and fortunately stepped in to enable students to qualify as special educators by launching FC-ECLD online course, it is now not agreeable to extend this benefit to the Petitioner. Therefore, question arises whether benefit of bridge course should be restricted as a one-time measure. No doubt this facility cannot be opened for one student alone. However, as it appears from the representation of the University, there are large number of students are still not qualified. It must be noted that the University is agreeable to conduct the course. Furthermore, the objective and rationale behind introducing the said bridge course must be kept in mind. The University did not apply for CRR as it was not covered under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Requirement for registration in RCI-CRR, however, later became an essential criterion for employment as a Special Educator. Thus, students despite training/ education remain unqualified for employment as a Special Educator. In order to boost employment for such students, RCI introduced the bridge course.

 

12. In the opinion of this Court, the foregoing reasons, re-launching the course would only further interest of the students and ultimately address the needs of special children as Petitioner’s counsel informs that there is a dearth of qualified teachers/ special educators. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the following directions: -

 

(i) RCI shall decide the representation of the University dated 17th/ 18th August, 2022, in light of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of six weeks from today. In the event, RCI finds favour with University’s representation – wide publicity be given to the decision by issuing public notices as well as written intimation to all eligible students, at their last known address available with Respondents.

 

(ii) In the event RCI takes a view which is adverse to the Petitioner, she shall be at liberty to take recourse against the same, in accordance with law.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022120116698925752022%20Del%20Single%20-%20Garima%20Midha.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

[Garima Midha Vs. Rehabilitation Council of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 13749/2022, decided on = 14.11.2022]

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Delhi High Court stays Suspension Order of a teacher passed by Ravindra Public School

Delhi High Court

18 November 2022

 

Delhi High Court stays Suspension Order of a teacher passed by Ravindra Public School

 

Mr. S. S. Tyagi is a permanent Trained Graduate Teacher (English) in Ravindra Public School, Delhi. He was entitled to receive salary as per 7^th CPC in terms of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. However, the said benefit was illegally denied by the school.

 

Being aggrieved, Mr. S. S. Tyagi, along with 8 other teachers, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court seeking salary as per 7^th CPC.

 

The school, in order to victimise Mr. S. S. Tyagi, vide Order dated 17.06.2020, illegally suspended him from service. Mr. S. S. Tyagi challenged his suspension order dated 17.06.2020 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble High Court, vide Order dated 01.10.2020, set aside the suspension order dated 17.06.2020.

 

Thereafter, vide Order dated 10.01.2022, Mr. S. S. Tyagi was again suspended from service. Mr. Tyagi challenged his second suspension order dated 10.01.2022 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Vide Order dated 18.11.2022, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court stayed the suspension order dated 10.01.2022. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 18.11.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“5. Issue notice. Ms. Tyagi accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 3. Upon the petitioner taking steps, issue notice to respondents no. 1 & 2 through all permissible modes. Counter affidavit and reply to the application, if any, be filed within six weeks.

 

6. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No. 37/2022 the operation of the impugned orders will remain stayed till the next date. This would, however, not entitle the petitioner for the present to claim any arrears for the differential amount. The relevant extract of the decision in Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. Sarika Prasad & Ors. reads as under:

“27. Respondent No.1 was put under suspension on 24.02.2020 and the approval of Director of Education ought to have been received on or before 11.03.2020 and pursuant to the said date, Respondent No.1 could not have been kept under suspension and the order of approval granted by Director of Education on 11.03.2021 would not revive the order of suspension which had lapsed on 11.03.2020.”

 

7. List on 24.04.2023.”

 

[S. S. Tyagi Vs. Ravindra Public School & Ors., WP (C) No. 15898/2022, Order dated – 18.11.2022, Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Next date of hearing = 24.04.2023]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022120116698808182022%20Del%20Single%20-%20S%20S%20TYAGI.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Delhi High Court restrained Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University from conducting Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) for filling up 48 posts of Junior Assistant

Delhi High Court

10 November 2022

 

Delhi High Court restrained Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University from conducting Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) for filling up 48 posts of Junior Assistant

 

On 21 March, 2022, Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) was conducted by the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University for making appointments on the post of Junior Assistant. Around 40,000 candidates appeared in the CBRT. The CBRT was conducted by the University in several centres in the Delhi NCR region.

 

Vide Notice dated 26.04.2022, the University cancelled the CBRT held in March, 2022 and decided to re-conduct the CBRT.

 

On 14-15th July, 2022, the CBRT was again conducted. Around 25,000 candidates appeared in the said written examination.

 

That vide Result Notice dated 23.08.2022, the University declared the list of selected as well as waiting list candidates. 48 candidates were selected for appointment on the post of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant (Post Code-0111202101) and 156 candidates were kept in the waiting list.

 

Vide Notice dated 26.10.2022, the University again cancelled the CBRT as conducted on 14-15th July, 2022 and declared as under: -

 

"In the conduct of Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) held on Jul. 15 - 16, 2022 for 48 posts of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant (Post Code - 0111202101) advertised against Advt No. - 01/11/2021 some of cases of unfair means at two centres were reported and FIRs were lodged with respective Cyber Cell Police Stations, Delhi Police. The investigation is under process. With the view to uphold the sanctity of the University Recruitment Process and in the interest of fairness to the applicants/candidates, the University cancels the CERT for the 48 posts of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant (Post Code - 0111202101) advertised against Advt No. - 01/11/2021 held on Jul. 14-15, 2022. This issue with the prior approval of the Competent Authority."

 

Being aggrieved by the Notice dated 26.10.2022, 13 shortlisted candidates challenged the same before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Vide Order dated 10.11.2022, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court restrained the University from conducting a fresh CBRT. Next date of hearing in the writ petition is 16.12.2022.

 

[Preeti Bhardwaj & Ors. vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & Ors.; W.P. (C) No. 15270/2022; Delhi High Court, Order dated 10.11.2022]

 

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022112616694715742022%20Del%20Single%20-%20Preeti%20Bhardwaj.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Delhi Police to fill 439 unfilled vacancies out of 707 advertised vacancies of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) from the Additional/Waiting List – Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

27^th September 2022

 

Delhi Police to fill 439 unfilled vacancies out of 707 advertised vacancies of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) from the Additional/Waiting List – Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

 

Vide Advertisement dated 17^th December 2017, the Delhi Police invited applications for appointment on 707 vacancies of Multi-Tasking Staff (Civilian) in 10 Trades (Safai Karamchari, Cook, Water Carrier, etc.) in Delhi Police. Recruitment process comprised of 2 tests i.e., a written test and a trade test.

 

Vide Result Notice dated 29.02.2020, 408 candidates were provisionally selected by the Delhi Police. Out of 408 candidates, only 268 candidates joined the police department. Consequently, 439 vacancies remained unfilled despite availability of shortlisted candidates (i.e., those candidates who qualified the written test as well as the trade test but, however, were not appointed by the Delhi Police and were kept in the additional/waiting list). Above all, the Delhi Police, instead of filling the unfilled vacancies from the shortlisted candidates, decided to re-advertise the unfilled vacancies.

 

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Delhi Police of not filling the unfilled vacancies, 29 shortlisted candidates filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 2047/2021) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

 

The applicants submitted before the Tribunal that at present 439 vacancies out of 707 vacancies, which were advertised, have remained unfilled and the respondents have given no reason whatsoever for not filling these vacancies. The applicants submitted that there are several shortlisted candidates available who have qualified both the written test as well as the trade test but, however, have not been appointed by the Delhi Police. The applicants submitted that the action of the Delhi Police is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the conditions set out in the advertisement.

 

The Central Administrative Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, directed the Delhi Police as under: -

“22. We are of the view that while the decision of the competent authority may be sound and well-reasoned, the process to arrive at this decision is not above questioning. The advertisement categorically mentions that all the 707 vacancies shall be filled up in accordance with the merit obtained by the candidates appearing for the selection process. Subsequently, by way of their own communication dated 10.06.2020, which is after the declaration of the results, the respondents have stated that the unfilled vacancies will be filled from the Additional List which will be declared shortly. There was absolutely no reason for the respondents not to declare the Additional List, especially when it was available with them and the Evaluation Officer who was of the rank of Special Commissioner of Police had prepared such a list and furnished it to the competent authority for approval, albeit a bit delayed.

 

23. In view of the above, we allow the present Original Application to the extent that a direction is given to the competent authority amongst the respondents to declare the complete result of all the candidates who have found place in the merit list for the advertised posts. The merit list in this context means the Main List, the Additional List, already prepared by the Evaluation Officer, and any subsequent list that may be prepared after due consideration to the number of posts advertised. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with and given effect to within a period of 10 weeks from the date of this order.”

 

[Pintu Meena & Ors. Vs. The Delhi Police & Anr., O.A. No. 2047/2021, Date of decision = 27.09.2022, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022101716660176682022%20CAT%20-%20Pintu%20Meena.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

No recoveries can be made from the retiral dues of an employee – CAT, Delhi

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

13.09.2022

 

No recoveries can be made from the retiral dues of an employee – CAT, Delhi

 

On 31.01.2018, Sh. Randhir Singh Grewal retired from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Government of NCT of Delhi while working as a pharmacist. Delhi Government, however, illegally withheld the retiral dues of the applicant on the ground that some purported excess payment of Rs 2,71,418 was made to the applicant and the same was recoverable from his retiral dues. Being aggrieved by the recovery order, Shri. Grewal filed an Original Application [O.A. No.4112/2018] before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi. Vide Order dated 13.09.2022, the Original Application was allowed. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 13.09.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“6. Heard counsel for the parties at length. The case of the applicant is whether the recovery from the employee can affected after retirement by the respondents. This issue is no more res integra.

 

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court states in the case of State of Punjab v/s Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 has decided, if excess payment is made prior to five years, it is not recoverable from the employees post retirement. In view of this, this Tribunal feels that the applicant’s case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih case (supra). This OA has got merit, it is hereby directed to the respondents to release the amount so recovered i.e., Rs.2,71,418/- within a period of 60 days to the applicant along with interest at GPF rates. The rate of interest shall be paid for the period of delay which comes to as 3 months’ time are already supposed to be taken by the respondents calculating the retiral benefits. With this, OA is allowed with no orders passed. No costs.”

 

[Sh. Randhir Singh Grewal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, O.A. No.4112/2018, Date of decision = 13.09.2022, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022101716660136462022%20CAT%20-%20Sh.%20Randhir%20Singh%20Grewal.pdf

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

A probationer can resign without serving 3 months’ notice period and any amount paid by the employee is liable to be refunded by the employer – Delhi High Court (DB)

08 September 2022

Delhi High Court (DB)

 

A probationer can resign without serving 3 months’ notice period and any amount paid by the employee is liable to be refunded by the employer – Delhi High Court (DB)

 

On 13.12.2019, Mr. Paras Khuttan was appointed as Manager (Law), on probation basis, in GAIL India Ltd.

 

On 15.01.2020, Paras resigned from service and requested for relieving on 22.01.2020 since, as a probationer, he was not required to serve any notice period.

 

GAIL India Ltd., however, insisted that Paras is required to serve 3 months’ notice period and only thereafter his resignation will be accepted by GAIL India Ltd.

 

Having no option, Paras served GAIL India Ltd. for 1 month and paid 2 months salary in lieu of remaining notice period.

 

GAIL India Ltd. thereafter accepted the resignation letter and Paras was finally relieved from service on 17.02.2020.

 

Thereafter, Paras filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 4617/2020] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court thereby seeking refund of his 2 months salary which he was forced to pay to GAIL India Ltd. at the time of resignation. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2021 by the Delhi High Court.

 

Being aggrieved by the Order dated 10.02.2021, passed by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Paras filed a Letters Patent Appeal [LPA 285/2021] before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Vide Order dated 08.09.2022, the LPA was allowed and GAIL India Ltd. was directed to refund 2-month salary to Paras. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 08.09.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“42. The present case is an open and shut case of a probationer whose services could have been terminated at any point of time and the probationer was well within the right to resign at any point of time as he was not an employee and he was not covered under Clause 8.1 of the Regulations governing the field. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him in lieu of notice period and the same be done positively within a period of 3 months from the receipt of a copy of this Order.

 

43. With the aforesaid directions, the LPA stands allowed. No orders as to costs.”

 

[Paras Khuttan Versus GAIL INDIA LTD & ANR., LPA 285/2021, decided on 08 September 2022]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022091216629853252022%20Del%20DB%20-%20Paras%20Khuttan.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

What are the minimum qualifying marks for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates for appointment on the post of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE? – Delhi High Court asks Delhi Government

07 September 2022

Delhi High Court (DB)

 

What are the minimum qualifying marks for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates for appointment on the post of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE? – Delhi High Court asks Delhi Government

 

Ms. Muslima Parveen appeared in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE, GNCTD. She obtained 39.39/100 marks in Section A and 62.62/100 marks in Section B i.e., total 102.01/200 marks. She was not shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier by DSSSB. Being aggrieved, Muslima filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 1241/2022) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi. Vide Order dated 13.07.2022, CAT dismissed the Original Application.

 

Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the CAT, Muslima filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 12996/2022] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Muslima, in her petition, submitted that the cut off marks stipulated by DSSSB for EWS candidates are 108.33 marks, whereas for UR candidates is 83.84 marks, which by itself is illogical, unjustified and amounts to no reservation for the EWS candidates. She also submitted that there is no justification as to how she was awarded with 39.39 marks when each question was of 1 mark.

 

Muslima also contended that the condition that a candidate must qualify ‘Section A’ and ‘Section B’ separately is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India and because of this arbitrary condition, 90% vacancies of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE have remained unfilled. Total 571 vacancies were advertised by DSSSB vide Advertisement dated 27.05.2021, out of which only 57 candidates obtained marks equal to, or above than, the minimum qualifying marks stipulated by DSSSB. It may be noted that total sanctioned posts of TGT (Urdu) Female in DOE are 1,032 posts, out of which 917 posts are lying vacant. That is, in other words, more than 85% vacancies are lying vacant for last several years and DSSSB and DOE, despite advertisements, have not been able to fill these vacancies. Unfilled vacancies directly violate the right to education of children who wants to study Urdu language as a subject.

 

Keeping in view the acute shortage of qualified Urdu teachers, Delhi Minorities Commission also sought a reply from the DSSSB. Consequently, DSSSB vide letter dated 15.07.2022 informed the Delhi Minorities Commission that DSSSB has taken a decision w.r.t. TGT (Urdu), TGT (Punjabi) and TGT (Sanskrit) posts that “the mandatory minimum qualifying marks will be applicable only in Section B, which is domain subject specific. There will not be any minimum qualifying marks in Section A. However, aggregate marks of both Section A & Section B will be reckoned for preparing the final merit list. This change in policy will be applicable only in r/o vacancies of posts to be notified by DSSSB in future.”

 

Muslima submitted that the aforesaid decision of DSSSB should not be restricted to the future vacancies but should also be applied to the vacancies advertised in the year 2021.

 

Considering the submissions made by the petitioner, Delhi High Court issued notice to the Government of NCT of Delhi and directed the Government to file reply within 4 weeks. Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 07.09.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the information, there is no minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) category of candidates in Section A and Section B. He further submits that though each question bore one mark, surprisingly the petitioner has been awarded with 39.39 % in Section A.

3. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

4. List on 25.11.2022.

5. Respondent shall also specify as to whether, there is any prescribed minimum qualifying marks in Section A for EWS category, and further they shall explain as to how petitioner was awarded with 39.39 % marks when each question had one mark allotted to it.”

 

[Muslima Parveen Vs. DSSSB & Anr., WP No. 12996/2022, Date of order = 07.09.2022, next date of hearing = 25.11.2022]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022091116628644002022%20Del%20DB%20-%20MUSLIMA%20PARVEEN.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com