SARIKA JINDAL Vs. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 14.2.2014 in Original Application No.644/PB/2012 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal) with a further prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant the relief prayed by the petitioner in para No.8 of the OA.

(2.) That the respondent-Navodaya Vidalaya Samiti issued an advertisement in the year 2011 for "Recruitment of Teachers for Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalas" vide which applications for the post of Social studies trained graduate teachers were invited under Post Code No.04. The upper age limit prescribed was 35 years as on 30.9.2011. The petitioner has passed her B.A. Examination from Punjabi University, Patiala. Thereafter, she passed B.Ed. from University of Jammu, MA in Political Science from Punjabi University, Patiala and PGDCA from Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The petitioner also appeared in Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) held by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in 2011 and secured 95 marks out of 150. She also had the teaching experience of 5 years. It is further pleaded that there was no stipulation in the advertisement qua the preparation of merit list on the basis of CTET result. However, the petitioner was not called for interview for selection/appointment to the post of TGT (Social Studies) in May 2011. The petitioner has prayed for declaring the criteria of calling for interview, selection/appointment to the post of TGT, Social Science etc. on the basis of marks obtained in CTET alone as invalid being against the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement. It was further prayed that the respondents be directed to consider and approve the selection of the petitioner against the advertisement, Recruitment Drive, 2011 (Annexure P-1) against one post of TGT (Social Studies) on the basis of her academic and educational qualifications. Hence, she preferred the OA before the learned Tribunal.

(3.) The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground inter alia that 3318 applications were received against the 74 vacant posts of TGT (Social Studies) in response to the advertisement issued in the Employment News, 24-30 September, 2011. 33 vacancies were related to the General Category and rests were for OBC, SC and ST categories. After scrutiny of the applications, 733 candidates were found eligible under General Category for recruitment to the post of TGT (Social Studies) against 33 vacant posts. Considering the number of vacancies and urgent requirement of the teachers, a decision was taken to invite candidates for interview equal to 5 times of the number of vacancies, based on their performance in CTET conducted in June, 2011 by the CBSE. Since the petitioner did not fall within the zone of shortlisted candidates i.e. 5 times the number of vacancies, she was not invited for interview. Resultantly, her name did not figure in the selection list.