RAJ KUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (History) in the directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in pursuance of Advertisement no. 002/99 of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short, 'dsssb')published in the year 1999. The candidates who fulfil the requisite educational qualifications from the recognized institution as per the advertisement/brochures by the DSSSB were eligible for the post of PGT (History ). The petitioner participated in a test conducted by DSSSB and was declared successful. He was issued offer of appointment dated 27. 12. 1999 by the deputy Director of Education (DDE) directing him to join his office within 10 days along with original certificates and attested copies thereof for verification. He reported to the Office of the DDE on 28. 12. 1999. He was asked to report for posting orders after four days. When he visited the office of the dde after four days, he was told that his certificate of 12th standard issued by the Board of Adult Education and Training (BAET) is not valid as the institute was not a recognized one. He was, therefore, not allowed to join the duties. In these circumstances, he filed OA No. 471/2000 before the Central administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Within few days thereafter, the petitioner received communication dated 23. 2. 2000 sent on 24. 3. 2000 and received by him on 28. 3. 2000 mentioning that Board of Adult education and Training (Institute of Adult Education) was not listed among the accredited institutes in the country and, therefore, his candidature was cancelled. The Tribunal, thereafter, considered the OA of the petitioner and passed orders dated 19. 12. 2000 inter alia stating that the petitioner should have been given opportunity of being heard.

(2.) AFTER this judgment, the respondents issued Order No. 56 dated 16. 1. 2001 nominating the petitioner to District West-B. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 23. 1. 2001 the petitioner was offered the post of PGT. The petitioner was posted to the Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, Hastal, New Delhi. Within four months thereafter, vide show-cause notice dated 31. 5. 2001, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why his services be not terminated as the basic qualification of 10+2, on the basis of which he was provisionally selected, was not recognized by the concerned authority. This show-cause notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing another OA before the Tribunal, which was however dismissed by the Tribunal vide orders dated 12. 7. 2002.

(3.) THE petitioner has passed his matriculation exam from Haryana Vidyalaya shiksha Board in March 1984. He passed Senior Secondary School (Uttar Madhyama)examination from BAET, New Delhi in the year 1988. On the basis of this qualification, he got admission in B. A. and did his graduation in April 1994 from Maharshi Dayanand Vishwa Vidyalaya. From the same university he did his b. Ed. in July 1997 and thereafter ehe even passed MA (History) in May 1998. On the basis of these qualifications, he had applied for the post of PGT. However, the bone of contention today is that the Senior Secondary School qualification obtained by the petitioner from BAET, New Delhi is not recognized as the said institute is not listed among the accredited Boards and Institutions in the country. The learned Tribunal, while dismissing the application of the petitioner herein, noted the argument of the respondents that Directorate of education by a public notice issued on 29. 1. 1999 in Times of India and Indian express had informed that four institutions, including BAET, are not listed among the accredited board/ institutions in the country and the certificates awarded by these institutions are not recognized by the competent authority. Though the petitioner was appointed provisionally on the basis of the Tribunal's orders dated 19. 12. 2000 passed in the first OA filed by the petitioner, thereafter Ministry of Human Resource Development vide its letter dated 24. 1. 2000 had informed the Directorate of Education that BAET is not recognized by CBSE nor the institution is working under the instructions of the Ministry and it was clarified that OM dated 12. 12. 1988 purported to have been issued by shri L. Parmar, former AEO, Ministry of Human Resource Development was never issued and that was a bogus letter. Going by these considerations, the Tribunal held as under :-