BABITA KUMARI Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Primary Teacher/Asstt. Teacher as she was selected by them being eligible and qualified.

(2.) . The respondent No.2, on 11/6/1998, issued an advertisement calling for applications from intending candidates for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers/Assistant Teachers, in the school run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Council and Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi respectively. The petitioner being eligible and qualified for such appointment, submitted her application. The petitioner is a Science Graduate from Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya, Bihar and also secured first class in B.Sc. (Hons.) Zoology course C from the said university. In support of the said claim of the. petitioner, a mark-sheet of the petitioner relating to her B.Sc. (Hons.) examination is placed on record. The petitioner was directed by respondent No.2 to appear before it for her selection. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and after verification of the documents, the respondent No.2 recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Primary Teacher. The said recommendation was made in the month of September, 1999. However, the petitioner received another letter from respondent No.3 calling her for verification of the documents. The petitioner reported before the respondent No.3 when she was informed that her appointment has been withheld as certain objections have been raised regarding her marks of graduation. Upon verification of her documents the respondent No.3 held that the score of the petitioner was less than the cut-off marks of 53.21% and on the said ground the candidature of the petitioner was rejected although she was earlier selected by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the present petition is filed.

(3.) . I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. On the basis of the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties and in the light of the records it is apparent that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that her score was less than the required cut-off marks of 53.21% as according to the respondents in calculating the score of the candidates, the marks of B.Sc. (Hons.) and subsidiary subjects both have to be taken into consideration. According to the petitioner since she had Honours in her graduation her score was to be calculated for the said examination on the basis of marks obtained by her in the Honours subjects only, whereas according to the respondents, the marks of B.Sc.(Hons.) and subsidiary subjects both have to be taken into consideration. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that-on'-the earlier calculation her score was 53.34% when marks of only Honours subjects were considered, which were higher to minimum cut-off score of 53.21% under U.R. category of selected candidates for the post of Primary Teacher in MCD. However, after re-calculation, on the basis of the Formula of calculating the score of the candidates in both Honours and subsidiary subjects, her score comes to 52.26%, which is below the minimum cut-off score of 53.21% and, therefore, she was not found eligible for the post of Primary Teacher in MCD and her selection was withdrawn and cancelled by the respondent No.2.