DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATI UNION OF INDIA Vs. AKBAR ALI A , S/O K K KUNHIKOYA; NOUFAL K, RESIDING AT MUFAZ, UTL, KAVARATTI ; KUNHI C C, RESIDING AT CHERIYATHECHETTA, UTL, AMINI; KAMAL HUSSAIN K K, RESIDING AT KEELAKUNNIKKAM, UTL, AMINI; SHAMSUDEEN M K, RESIDING AT MAYAMKAKKADA, UTL, ANDROT; MEHRALI C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions arise out of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 25.4.2008 in O.A.No.354/2005, an Original Application filed by the applicant in that OA seeking for an order to quash Annexures A8, A12 and A13; to declare that the action of the Director of Education, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti in cancelling Annexure A7 by Annexure A8 and re-notifying the vacancies for enabling the candidates who were not eligible as on the last date for receipt of application in Annexure A1 is unconstitutional, ultra vires, arbitrary and vitiated by legal malafides; to issue appropriate direction directing the Director of Education to proceed with the selection process initiated as per Annexure A1 and to complete the selection by preparing the select list of candidates for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher from among the candidates found qualified in Annexure A6 and to make appointment therefrom in accordance with law; to direct the Director of Education not to operate Annexure A13 select list and not to make any appointment therefrom to the post of Physical Education Teacher and to direct the Director of Education not to include respondents 7 to 9 in the OA who have not secured 40% marks in the concerned degree and not to consider any of the candidates applied for the post pursuant to Annexure A1 who did not qualify as on the date of receipt of application fixed therein.

(2.) The Tribunal originally dismissed the OA by order dated 16.1.2007 holding that the applicant does not possess the qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and in the notification, i.e., graduation with Diploma in Physical Education, since he is having only a composite degree in Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE), which would not satisfy the dual qualification prescribed therein and there was no equivalent qualification either in the notification or in the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the applicant is not qualified for the post in question. However, the Tribunal proceeded further with the matter and concluded that none of the other candidates also possess the required qualification. Holding thus, the Tribunal directed the Director of Education to verify whether any, some or all of the selected candidates who are respondents in the OA are ineligible from the point of view of the prescribed qualification and in case of non-possession of such qualification, he shall take rectificatory action allowed under the Rules, including possible review of such appointments by following the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 16.1.2007, respondents 6 to 8 in the OA filed R.A.No.6/2007. Respondents 3 to 5 in the OA have also filed R.A.No.7/2007. The Tribunal heard both the Review Applications together and by a common order dated 30.3.2007 held that there is error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly the order dated 16.1.2007 in O.A.No.354/2005 was recalled and the said OA was posted for hearing to 16.4.2007. Thereafter, the OA was re-heard and allowed by Ext.P3 order dated 25.4.2008, holding that the applicant fulfills the educational qualifications for the post of Physical Education Teacher and therefore, his case should be reviewed taking his qualification as graduation and Diploma in Physical Education. On such review of the total marks obtained by him, the same shall be contrasted with the marks of others and in case the applicant comes in merit, he shall be offered appointment. The Tribunal has also made it clear that, in that event, the one who has been selected with marks less than the applicant may have to be issued with an order of termination. The Tribunal has also made it clear that the seniority of the applicant in the event of his appointment should be on the basis of his merit in the selection.