YOGESH DUTT Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks promotion to the post of TGT (English) with the respondent No.3/Diwan Chand Arya Senior Sec. School. Petitioner claims that he meets the necessary criteria/qualification and the respondents are wrongly denying him the promotion. Respondent No.3-school is an aided school i.e 95% of the finances are given by the Government of NCT of Delhi through Director of Education. The qualification which is required for the post of TGT (English) is that the candidate must have a bachelor degree (pass/hons.) from a recognized University having secured at least 45% marks in aggregate in the actual subjects of which at least one is English. I am not making reference to other subjects because they are not necessary for the decision of this writ petition.

(2.) It is not disputed that the aforesaid criteria was a requirement in terms of the notification dated 13.3.2000, but, what the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contend is that a subsequent circular has been issued clarifying that the requirement of the elective subject English is such that the subject English should be a subject in all the three years. The amended requirement/corrigendum reads as under:-

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, in rejoinder it is contended that the issue in the present case is covered by two Division Bench judgments of this Court. First is the judgment in the case of Mrs. Manju Pal Vs. Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr., 2002 1 All India Service Law Journal 377 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that for appointment to a post of Primary Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi when the requirement was of studying higher secondary in Hindi, then if the candidate had graduation in Hindi, then such qualification being higher is enough even if the candidate does not have higher secondary in Hindi. The second judgment which is relied upon is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Ram Prakash Pathak in W.P.(C) No.14473/2005 decided on 5.9.2005 which holds that executive instructions in the nature of corrigendum cannot take away the effect of rules which have been specifically notified.