GIRISH AHUJA Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by the petitioner who is a former Air Force Officer challenges the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT') dated 28th May, 2008 in OA No. 2241/2007 dismissing his O.A.. By the said OA, the petitioner had challenged respondent No. 1, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan's decision declining to appoint the appellant to the post of physical education teacher (PET for short), even though he was selected, on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification for the post due to his not having secured B.P.Ed. or equivalent degree.

(2.) THUS the issue arising in the present writ petition is whether a physical Training Instructor with 20 years experience in the Air Force whose qualification has been determined by the Department of Personnel & Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, Government of India to be equivalent to the qualification set out by the respondents can be denied the appointment to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, a Government organization, by questioning of the said equivalence determined by the expert body i.e. Department of Personnel & Training.

(3.) THE petitioner challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, leading to the impugned judgment dated 28th May, 2008. The petitioner pleaded that he had served the Indian Air Force for more than 20 years as Ground Training Instructor and had undergone and successfully completed the prescribed training and passed the requisite examination for equating his post with the civilian qualification, that is, of physical training instructor and thus the certificate issued to him on 10th August, 2007 by the Indian Air Force made him eligible for appointment as PET, as besides the equivalence determined by the Department of Personnel & Training it was also considered as equivalent to B.P.Ed. by an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Labour, pursuant to which the service trade/qualification of Ground Training Instructor of the Indian Air Force had been equated with that of Sports Coach, Physical Instructor and Umpire, and Referee. He, therefore, contended that since he fulfilled the qualifications qua equivalence, he was denied the appointment on a wrong premise. He also submitted that a similarly placed person having similar qualifications as the petitioner, namely Sh. Prabu Narainan Yadav was appointed as PET in the year 2003 and thus the respondent violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in denying him such appointment.