Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, a writ petition was filed to challenge an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘the Tribunal’), whereby an application filed on the petitioner’s behalf to declare him eligible for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (‘TGT’) (Hindi), was dismissed, the Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta*, JJ., set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the respondents that if the petitioner met with the other conditions of eligibility, then consider him eligible for an interview to the post of TGT (Hindi).
Background
In the instant case, Respondent 2, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (‘KVS’) issued an advertisement dated 14-08-2018, for the recruitment of Principals, Vice-Principals, Post Graduated Teachers (‘PGTs’), TGTs, Librarian and Primary Teachers in KVS on the basis of written examination and interview.
The petitioner applied for the post of TGT (Hindi), he cleared the written examination and was subsequently shortlisted for an interview. However, he was not allowed to appear for the interview board on the ground that he had not studied Hindi in all the three years at the graduation level and thus, did not fulfil the requirements of Recruitment Rules.
Further, vide representation dated 16-02-2019, the petitioner informed Respondent 2 that he had acquired post-graduation degree in Hindi, but he did not receive any response to his representation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal to direct the respondents to declare the petitioner eligible for TGT (Hindi) and permit him to appear before the interview board. However, vide order dated 25-04-2019, the said application was dismissed.
Thus, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Court and vide order dated 09-05-2019, the petitioner was permitted to file a review petition before the Tribunal and writ petition was kept pending. Thereafter, vide order dated 01-11-2019, the petitioner’s application before the Tribunal was finally dismissed on merits.
The issue for consideration in the present case was whether the petitioner who had studied Hindi for two years at the graduation level and had post-graduate degree in Hindi met the essential qualifications of the Recruitment Rules, which prescribed that to be appointed as TGT (Hindi), Hindi should be studied as a subject in all three years of graduation.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sachin Gupta, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3045, wherein the question for consideration was that, whether the petitioners were eligible for the post of TGT in respective subjects, if they had studied the concerned subject for two years at the graduation level, instead of three years, and the Division Bench held that, “if a literal meaning of a statute or rule leads to absurdity, the principle of literal interpretation need not be followed and recourse should be taken to the purposive and meaningful interpretation to avoid injustice, absurdity and contradiction so that the intent of the purpose of legislature is given effect to.”
The Court opined that that it could not be treated as an absolute legal proposition that even if the concerned subject had been studied in a particular course in a university only for a year, the same had to be considered to meet the eligibility condition of having studied the subject for all three years. If it was established that the curriculum for three years period was covered in a period of two years, the question for equivalence could still be considered.
The Court relied on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sachin Gupta, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3045 and opined that in the present case, the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria of appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi), which was a modern Indian language.
The Court observed that with the advent of technology, to upkeep with the global education standards, the educational curriculum had been changing and new courses had been evolved. However, sometimes, the curriculum and the same subject for the number of years varied within universities. This resulted in a situation, where the students who undertook the similar courses stood ineligible for applying to various jobs in the government as the Recruitment Rules remained antiquated and inflexible.
The Court observed that different eligibility conditions prescribed by different institutions under the same board were not comprehensible as it kept out large number of eligible candidates and further opined that since the curriculum to be taught was generally similar across all different educational boards, it might be in consonance with the objective of National Education Policy, 2020 to provide uniform or consistent eligibility conditions for recruitment to the posts of Primary Teachers, TGTs and PGTs.
The Court directed the copy of the present order to be forwarded to the Ministry of Higher Education, Government of India to prescribe appropriate guidelines for inclusion or amendment of Recruitment Rules for the purpose of recruitment to the posts of Primary Teachers, TGTs and PGTs.
The Court allowed the present writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The Court directed the respondents that if the petitioner met with the other conditions of eligibility, then consider him eligible for interview to the post of TGT (Hindi). The Court further stated that the same should be done withing four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order and if the petitioner qualified the interview and fell within the merit list, he should be appointed with four weeks. Further, if the petitioner was appointed, he should not be entitled to any arrears of salary, but he should be notionally granted the seniority along with the fixation of pay and consequential benefits from the date other candidates in the said selection were appointed.
[Naveen Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6025, decided on 25-09-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Basab Sengupta, R.S. Kaushik, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Pinky Yadav, Deepesh Chaudhary, Sachin, Deepak Mahajan and Pushpender Singh Charak, Advocates
