16 August 2022
Central
Administrative Tribunal
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 (Hindi) – Held, Central
Administrative Tribunal, Delhi
Candidature
of Ms. Uma Rani was rejected by the DSSSB on the ground that Ms. Uma Rani has
done B.Ed. (Special Education) whereas the requisite qualification for
appointment on the post TGT (Hindi) in DOE, GNCTD is B.Ed.
Being
aggrieved by rejection of her candidature, Ms. Uma Rani filed an Original
Application [OA No. 2183/2015] before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Vide
Order dated 16.08.2022, the Original Application was allowed. Directive paragraphs
of the Order dated 16.08.2022 read as under: -
“11.
Against the aforesaid background and the categorical directions of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi, we are surprised to know that the respondents have not
taken any steps to either amend the necessary rules or even issue
administrative orders declaring equivalence of B.Ed Special Education with
B.Ed.
12.
We have no cause to deviate from the principle and law already laid down by the
Hon'ble High Court. Moreover, even our reading of the degree held by the applicant
of B.Ed Special Education means that the term ‘B.Ed’ gets subsumed in the B.Ed
Special Education and we cannot hold the validity of the action of the
respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant.
13.
Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed. The impugned result
notice dated 19.03.2015 bearing no. F.1 (213)/CC-II/DSSSB/2012/ qua the
applicant is set-aside.
14.
The respondents are further directed that in the event of the applicant having
been successful in the competitive exam and given appointment pursuant to this
Order, she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including
seniority at par with the candidates selected pursuant to the notification
dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure A-9). However, such consequential benefits shall be
only on notional basis. There shall be no order as to costs.”
[Ms.
Uma Rani Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, OA No. 2183/2015, Decided on
16.08.2022, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]
https://www.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
