RAJEENA P.S. Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the applicants in O.A.No.424 of 2012 is before us against the common order, Exhibit P4, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in a batch of Original Applications. The petitioner/applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of her claim to be considered for recruitment as a Nursery Trained Teacher (NTT) on the basis of Annexure A3 Employment Notice issued under Annexure A2 Recruitment Rules. By Annexure A3, 5 posts of NTT was notified, along with other posts, with the prescription of 50% marks in Senior Secondary School (Class XII) Certificate and Certificate course in pre-primary teachers training as recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE); as the essential basic educational qualification.

(2.) ANNEXURE A3 Employment Notice was brought out for recruitment to 5 posts of NTT, in accordance with Annexure A2 notification. The petitioner, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, was also entitled for a relaxation of 5% marks in the essential qualification prescribed, as is evidenced by Annexure A4. Though the petitioner also appeared in the written examination, she was declared unqualified, since she did not have 45% marks in the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination.

(3.) THE applicants contended before the Tribunal mainly that all the vacancies which were notified as per Annexure A3 were of the period prior to the introduction of Recruitment Rules, 2011 (Annexure A2). The prescription of minimum requirement of 50% marks in the qualifying examination by the Recruitment Rules, 2011 was also challenged as being arbitrary, especially in the context of the NCTE Regulation, 2002 having prescribed only 45% marks in the qualifying examination. The Tribunal found that the applicants cannot claim any vested right to the vacancies that arose before the Recruitment Rules, 2011 was notified and considering the fact of availability of sufficient candidates having the requisite qualification, it was also held that they could claim no relaxation. The plea of arbitrariness, discrimination and mala fides were negated and having stated the oft-quoted principle of prescription of qualification being in the exclusive domain of the executive, which the Courts would not venture to meddle with, dismissed the Original Applications.