SANTOSH PAL MEENA Vs. UPSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a common judgment disposing of W.P (C) nos. 3894, 3895, 3903, 3904, 3905, 3924, 3862 & 3876/14. The petitioners are aggrieved by a common order dated 29.05.2014 of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting their applications, in which they had challenged the decision of the respondents, the Government of NCT of Delhi (hereafter "GNCT)" and the Union Public Service Commission (hereafter "UPSC") to treat them as ineligible for the post of Principal, Directorate of Education, GNCT (DOE). The GNCT had advertised 58 vacancies in the post of Principals in the GNCT managed schools; the eligibility conditions prescribed 10 years' teaching experience and post-graduation. The respondents' contention, upheld in the impugned order, was that reckonable experience for consideration to the post was 10 years' service after post-graduation.

(2.) The UPSC issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Principal in GNCT; the petitioners were serving as PGT/TGT in DOE, GNCT, and applied in response to the said advertisement. They were asked to appear in the written test held on 29.04.2013, which they did. The respondents declared the result of the test, by which 200 candidates including the Petitioners were declared successful and were declared eligible to appear in the interview for the 58 vacancies of Principal in DOE. A month later, the respondents issued another additional list of 88 successful candidates in the written test. It was later, in September, 2013, that the respondents issued a letter intimating the date of interview and also issued admit cards. The petitioners were not, however issued admit cards; their names were also not included in the interview list. This led to their approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

(3.) The petitioners alleged that they fulfilled all eligibility criteria spelt out in the advertisement and in the Recruitment Rules and that as they had applied through proper channel, their experience was verified. Their experience had been counted by the respondents from the date of appointment as TGT/PGT in High School as well as Senior Secondary School. It was alleged that without calling for additional documents in support of their eligibility (i.e. qualification and experience) after the declaration of the result or before preparing the list of candidates for interview, the respondents could not have declared the applicants ineligible for interview, that too without passing any order. They claimed to have been informed orally that UPSC interpreted the experience condition in a different manner; however, they were in the dark as they had not received any communication in writing. It was also alleged that the certificates rendered with relation to experience relate to DOE and, therefore, could not be disputed. The petitioners alleged that the order refusing their candidature was illegal and arbitrary as well as in violation of principles of natural justice. It was submitted that in view of the advertisement, candidates had to possess 10 years' experience, irrespective of date of acquiring Master Degree, and even the DOE, while issuing the experience certificate had taken into account the conditions mentioned in the advertisement. Based on these pleadings, the petitioners sought declaration that they were eligible for appointment to the post of Principal in DOE, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and a direction that they should be appointed to the said post.